With only 5%-13% of the final net prices comes from agr./retailers WORLD ruralists demand multis, tradings other RECOVER their part in all DESTRUCTION

With only 5% to 13% of the final net income (prices received) comes from agribusinesses and/or retailers WORLDWIDE, ruralists demand/require that Multinationals/Processors/Trading/Retailers/Speculators/Governments etc. also RECOVER their giant/much more lucrative shares in all destructions of world soil, subsoil, water, air, etc., as they will never be able to recover everything ALONE.

?1) Abstract -

?FOCUS: It is IMMORAL AND VERY UNFAIR that in the World Agri-Food-Energy the Ruralists “Alone” - only earning between 9.0% to 23.0% of the average Gross Incomes of the World's Agr-food/energies Systems etc. before final retailers - with Agribusiness and Food, according to recent data from USDA/ERS plus Eurostat, FAO and other serious ones -, to recover – ALONE (the Ruralists), as everyone demands -, the Climates and the World Degradations of Soils, Waters and Air etc., and WITH THE OTHER LINKS? OF THE CHAINS - VERY AND MUCH RICHER (since they remain with 77% to 91% of the same average world Gross Incomes) – MORE MUCH GOVERNMENTS (EVEN HIDING AND NONE WAY PARTICIPATING, OR ONLY A LITTLE) TO BANK such essential more urgent recoveries. Worse still, this occurs daily in the corporate and business world, which is very close-knit, perhaps even very cartelized, and exploitative - not distributive - of income and labor from grains, cereals, food, energy, etc. and in which buyers, processors, transporters, insurance companies, banks, exchanges, brokers, wholesalers, end retailers, etc., run little or no climate risks, financial risks, banking or asset risks, etc. and much less do they have to invest, ALONE, high amounts in purchases and, at least a little, in the current recovery of their expensive rural properties, which are essential for everyone to have an income or to make a lot of profit. EVEN WORSE is that if we consider the shares of average and total net income received by ruralists in average and total world sales/purchases of only food and beverages in the final world retails/foods services the situation, realistically, gets even worse for ruralists, since it reduces to only 5.0% of proven share of average real net revenues (prices % participations) received by all ruralists in Brazil compared to the final real net wholesales/retails sales prices. So, the final cost (gross revenue) paid for average rural producers, obtained in the average world retail sales (exporting) and/or in domestic sales are from 11.0% in the average final US retail prices (as proven by USDA/ERS) to 13.0% same in the European Union retail (Eurostat). After all, ruralists - even though they already receive very little of the final average gross income and before wholesale and/or retail (from only 9.0% to 23.0% as seen before) still have many family expenses to pay and others that are also mandatory in their properties. These mandatory expenses are almost always forgotten and/or hidden by the ruralists themselves and/or their agencies and governments, either out of embarrassment or because they are not properly accounted for or even well noted. For example: we have the many average local family costs with other food/drinks, clothing, water or its systems, electricity, internet, telephone, taxes, car fuel, hospitals/health plans, schools/colleges of the ruralists and/or their children and grandchildren, etc. In some places and countries, also they even have to bear absurd expenses, such as the costs of catching small animals (birds and others) and some manual harvests and transportation. Also, y think that all Governments, Socio-Environmental Organizations and Universities/Foundations of agribusiness bodies etc., can no longer hide this. On the contrary, it is URGENTLY and necessary that all links of the hundreds foods factories, beverages, energy, timber/extractive/packaging, machinery, inputs, trading’s, transportation, exchanges, stockbrokers, wholesale, retail, food service and other many chains sectors worldwide, etc. as well as the few trillion-dollar world families (the HNWI “High-Net Worth Individuals” with 0.025% of the world’s population but already with combined wealth of 3 times the current GDP of the United States as above demonstrated) all TO REDUCE their domination and ambitions (even if they are obliged and imposed by the UN and/or by the World Bank and/or by the G7 or by the G20 governments) even if few take the slightest care of the global socio-environmental issue. Thus, we must always to disclose these global data, maybe even of “collective blood” (it is because of such errors/cover-ups that 11,0% of the world’s population still goes hungry and that 17,0% of the final food is destined for the trash) so that everyone is obliged to pay their fundamental and fair parts in the climates/soils/water urgent recoveries (without false speeches – as recent made by false entrepreneurs/bad marketing directors--Fraud Advisor/Governments all with much more world criminous acts named “GREEN WASHING” – also more without socioenvironmental contrary world lobbies (even at the UN) more of bad world – some small and maybe even some large - NGO actuations with some of them totally outside the controlling Governments (some only thinking about invoicing, buying new and fashionable vehicles and there is a lot to employ/protect and little or nothing to do with what was contracted/agreed). Y think and y proof that if the entrepreneurs more corporate companies of all world don’t observe well and not to take all those alerts this very seriously, and to act at the contrary form, our civilizations - and our future business - by and for all – will perish and ever faster.

Quite the opposite of the bad global examples of “Greenwashing” above, recent, the American/English magazine “food chain” has already identified and classified the 5 most sustainable food companies in the US, most of which are still medium and small. See https://foodchainmagazine.com/news/top-five-sustainable-food-companies/

2) Introduction - ?

In this SHORT Diagnosis/Paper (09 pg.), I PROVE - with irrefutable and recent data from USDA/ERS plus European Eurostat - that it is immoral, unfair and even illegal for only the global rural producers/ranchers ALONE (earning only 9.0% to 23.0% of the average Gross Income comes from all rural activities and/or, on average, from 5.0% (Brazil) to 11.0% (USA) and even 13.0% (EU) of the average net final % revenues in the various global final retailers of food/drinks/energy, etc.) to recover alone the soils, subsoils, water, air, etc., that is, of the global biomes and biotas that they have already to make and/or perhaps even be forced to degrade those fundamental recuperations (even if with help and participation of world governments and that already have - or need to have - other much greater socio-environmental priorities, such as the Us$ billions/year necessary to eliminate slums and to clean up many poor countries as in Brazil).

Some serious global diagnoses (without being witch hunts) indicated that from the buyers, processors and even from the global food, beverage and other final items industry in retail were already generating - in the successive aggregations of value by the various links in the chains - 2 to 5 times more value than the global agricultural itself production (source: the STATISTA USA Consulting), that is, with 100% to 400% of increases added to the average final prices paid for food by consumers in retail, bars, restaurants, food service and other global markets, above the average basic prices (costs before transport/processing, etc.) spent on their purchases from global farmers, who are the fundamental parts of all chains.

On the other hand, changes in land use (clearing, fires, burning, preparation and use of soil and water, etc. for agricultural and other purposes) already represented the second largest source of greenhouse gas emissions after the combustion of fossil fuels.

The agrarian degradation was also one of the world's leading causes of families being forced goes to the countryside for the cities and, with this, also of intensive slums near or within large and medium-sized cities worldwide (in Brazil, the area of slums is already growing 1,95% per year more than the population ampliation of 1,45% each year). To try to mitigate or even solve, in part and urgently, this socio-environmental bad situation - in addition to my nine several other possible local actions (which I also suggest at the end) it will be necessary to encourage/challenge/propose/approve/install a new Collective and Socio-Environmental Fund by the UN or the World Bank and capable of taxing at least 5.0% - initially or until necessary - the giant global profits of the great trillionaire families of the world (equal to 0.025% of the world population, but which already hold wealth of Us$ 86.8 trillion, that is, 3 times greater than the GDP of the USA in the same year of Us$ 27.4 trillion) plus to tax and same too all global Companies of any size and location (Banks; Stock Exchanges; Highly devastating silent Mining companies; Large oil/fuel and/or processing industries - highly devastating as well -, especially from Asia, the Middle East/all the Americas/Northern Europe -; more for multis, trading’s, transport companies, brokers, packaging companies, agribusinesses/cooperatives/cold-storage plants/integrators/developers/suppliers/processors; all wholesalers, retailers, plus “food services”, bars and restaurants worldwide, etc.).

As another example, the agribusiness companies alone - plus those involved in the processing and global sales of food/energy/beverages/forestry/extractive products, etc.- already pocket (quietly, in proven ways and without taking responsibility for any of the recovery from the socio-environmental devastation they cause and use to profit greatly each year) already they receive 77.0% to 91.0% of the average global gross revenue from all activities up to the final retail sector - see the ruralists' shares above. On the other hand, even with such great economic and financial strength and cleverness worldwide, they - in addition to wasting 17.0% of the world's food produced, according to the FAO (thus, without any fault of the world's ruralists) - still leave/or allow 11.0% of the world's population to go hungry. In 2021 alone, more than 3.1 billion people - or 42.0% of the total - were unable to afford a healthy daily diet (134.0 million people more than in 2019). In 2022, 148.0 million children under 5 years of age (22.3%) were short and 45.0 million (6.8%) were poorly fed or anemic children.

3) My Diagnosis/Paper (with only 10 pages and with many supporting links in the descriptions) -

a)?????? About the Beneficial Data and the Main Causes of the already Immense and Progressive Global Socio-Environmental Degradations -

In the most important current producing grains/cereals/food countries in the world (USA, Brazil and EU region, the main ones analyzed here as examples because they are the ones with the most available and reliable data), the rural producers only to receive 5.0%-13.0% of the final AVERAGE net incomes of agribusiness and the food, beverage and forestry products industries, etc. THEY, nonetheless, ALONE will not recover the already immense devastation of soils, subsoils, waters, aquifers and air that they would destroy, together with the other participants of the all chains (all, as dependent/added links in the agribusiness chains) and this even with some world governments helping/financing/incentivizing/demanding them.

In fact, the multi-suppliers plus the trading companies; processors; food/beverage/forestry product retailers, etc., and all other dependent/profiteering agents also need to pay their share of what they helped to destroy (to profit and become very rich) and in ways corresponding to their very high revenues and profits, all within another only 10 years more, otherwise they will be left without their immense future profits and without investors/shareholders, etc.

Therefore, it is considered as FUNDAMENTAL and as NECESSARY to share, urgently and in some way (as I even suggest at the end), the high costs to quickly recover our planet and its biomes, otherwise global warming and the lack of soil, water, air, forests/wood/fields, food, drinks, demands, etc., will destroy everyone, including our children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, as well as our companies, stock markets and world governments. Recently, and as proof, there have been many protests in rich agricultural Europe (whose average total net income in hectares/year is 2.2 times greater than in the Brazil – see below) against global multinationals, traders, retailers, etc., which import agricultural raw materials almost “in natura” (grains, cereals, oils, bran, wood, ethanol, biodiesel, organic products, timber, cellulose’s, extractives, etc.) and/or basic foods (meat, dairy products, fish, eggs, etc.) even to be reprocessed, cheaply from other countries to process internally, instead of buying from the same EU, which demonstrates how low and how unremunerative are the amounts paid by them in average to all rural producers from third countries, especially at Brazil. See more at: https://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2024/02/27/exp-europe-farmer-protests-danielle-resnick-intv-022702aseg1-cnni-world.cnn ?and at https://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2024/02/27/exp-europe-farmers-protest-ody-intv-022708aseg2-cnni-world.cnn ??

On the other hand, it has already been proven worldwide that most of the world's climate and socio-environmental devastation results comes from extremely high, unbridled ambitions - which require extremely high and growing annual GROSS/NET PROFITS, to be generated maybe with the "Blood and Losses of the People" (see the recent case of the tragedy in the State of Rio Grande do Sul and this already recurrently every 05-08 years and in 5 other States of Brazil too), especially of the most humble/hungry/poor people around the World. Such extremely high and still unstoppable global ambitions (not yet properly taxed, “also by force”, due to an absolute lack of courage, inertia or even fear of the UN/IBRD and the G7 Countries and/or the G20 Countries) occur because only a few owner/controlling families and already trillionaires in the world, plus the shareholders, investors and also the CEOs, CFOs, CTOs, Directors, Consultants, etc. of their many large and giant companies (“quietly and that, even with 77,0% to 91,0% of the average final gross profits worldwide – of the 03 main food producing countries -, compared to only 9,0% to 23,0%, gross, by the global ruralists) - do not want to take responsibility for any of the global environmental and climate recoveries, etc., in other words, shooting themselves in the foot in the long term”). All of them already to control and/or to dominate not only Finance, but also the Environment and Food/Energy worldwide through suffocation and even unfair competition (Banks; Stock Exchanges; Silent and highly devastating Mining Companies; Large Oil/Fuel and/or Processing Industries – highly devastating as well –, especially in the Asia more in the Middle East/all the Americas/Northern Europe –; more by Multis, Trading Companies, Transport Companies, Brokers, Packaging Companies, Agro-industries/Some bad-not Social Cooperatives/Bovine Meat Processors/Pigs-Chicken-Fish-Milkier-Ovine Vertical Integrators Companies/Timber-Celluloses Developers/Suppliers/Processors more all Global Wholesalers, Retailers and Food ?Service etc.).

In short: perhaps to make much more profit - supposedly by feeding only around 48.0% of the world's population well (29.6% already without constant access + around 22.3% already poorly fed and short, due to not having a healthy diet), some of them could already be contributing to the devastation of 100% of the most productive places more of the biomes and even of humans and biotas.

In the world, there is a very select group of very ambitious individuals and families (which total only 22.8 million people, the so-called HNWI “High-Net Worth Individuals” - equal to 0.025% of the world population of 7.9 billion - but their companies or subsidiaries already control - much of it for the “bad” (few resources go to the real, charities and similar) - almost all the world's assets and finances. Together, these 0.025% richest HNWI held assets worth Us$ 86.8 trillion in 2022, that is, 3 times greater than the US GDP in the same year (Us$ 27.4 trillion).

These trillionaire families in the world only accounted for 0.25% of the world population in 2021, but they already had an average “per capita” income between 1,500 and 2,000 times greater than that of the poorest. The same goes for ambitions global accumulations of much more profits and wealth - than is really necessary - by the many multinationals, trading companies, transport companies, maybe some vampire businessmen, banks, insurance companies, stock market speculators, governments, etc.

On the other hand, in 2022, according to FAO, the situation of Food Security and Nutrition remained bleak, as approximately 29.6% of the global population, equivalent to 2.4 billion people, still did not have constant access to food, measured by the prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity.

Among them, about 900 million individuals (about 11% of the total population as above) faced severe food insecurity. Meanwhile, people’s ability to access healthy diets has deteriorated globally, with more than 3.1 billion people – or 42% of the total – unable to afford a healthy diet in 2021. This represented an overall increase of 134 million people compared to 2019.

Also, millions of children under the age of five continued to suffer from malnutrition, and in 2022, 148 million children under the age of five (22.3%) were stunted, 45 million (6.8%) were anemic and 37 million (5.6%) were overweight.

On the other hand, some diagnoses (without being global witch hunts) have already indicated that the global industry of food, beverages and other final items in retail was already generating 2 to 5 times more value (sources: the STATISTA USA Consulting more USDA/ERS) than the global agricultural production itself (that is, with 100% to 400% increases in the average final prices paid by food retailers, bars, restaurants, food service and other global companies for food, before the average basic prices of their purchases from global ruralists), unfortunately, because in this way it seems that they maybe to choose and/or to greatly oppress rural productive actions, which are fundamental for the countries and even for such companies. The majority, unfortunately, still do not take responsibility for the already very high and still growing global socio-environmental “chaos” (almost “washing their hands”, since there are still very few who really/evidently act in favor of the global environmental cause), which is easily proven today by the countless losses and deaths caused by such climate changes all over the Planet, such as the recent floods with many deaths that occurred in the State of Rio Grande do Sul - Brazil.

Even worse is that many global food industries (most of them sector giants and which should be the most credible and most protective/guiding/sectoral examples in the long term) continue to insist on practicing the horrendous crime against global consumers just called as “greenwashing” (greening balance sheets/brands/labels, perhaps even as “laundering balance sheets”), in which they easily embellish their powerful internal balance sheets and (more to attract investors and shareholders) and advertisements for their consumers, claiming to take protective and corrective socio-environmental measures in their production and their industrialization, measures that are completely false and poorly implemented or dubious.

See more IMPORTANT information about “What is “Greenwashing” and what can you do about it?” at: https://www.workforclimate.org/post/what-is-greenwashing-and-what-can-you-do-about-it?gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAjwqf20BhBwEiwAt7dtdfMho7kCEYViXNHqrOed1Uf032qqOCeh1YZGaAPF29DfEcRP6hz7hBoCRZ8QAvD_BwE??

There are even consultancies and websites that name some recognized practitioners and that point out how to identify the false sustainability practices of companies that use “Greenwashing”. See Greenwashing: what it is and how to identify the practice of false sustainability: https://edition.cnn.com/cnn-underscored/home/what-is-greenwashing#:~:text=One%20of%20the%20easiest%20ways,ingredients%20are%20good%20for%20you. ?

See also: “Greenwashing - How the practice is frowned upon in the current market” at: https://ojs.revistagesec.org.br/secretariado/article/view/3787

Analyzing, now, from the perspective of revenues and remunerations to rural producers, the global food, beverage and other industries already generate 2 to 5 times more value than the global agricultural production itself, and in the USA, for example, for every US$ 1.00 spent by the consumer on food, only US$ 0.11 (11%) = that is, average final net income =, actually comes from primary agricultural explorations (in Brazil, it fluctuates, on average across all activities and locations, between 10,0% to 23,0% gross and only between 5,0% and 10,0% net and when the mandatory personal expenses of rural producers and their families to survive decently are discounted (because, even holding high assets in a few locations and a few activities - due to the continuous and constant benefits and arduous and dangerous daily family work - in which children are still seen more as free labor -, their annual and final net income, in general, does not even remunerate 1.0% per month on their invested capital and/or assets.

In general, there are many family and internal expenses on rural properties in Brazil, of any size and location - almost always forgotten and/or hidden by them or by their Agencies and Governments, even out of shame or even not accounted for/properly recorded, such as costs with food/drinks, clothing, water or its systems, electricity, internet, telephone, taxes, car fuel, schools/colleges/colleges, etc. In some places, they even have to bear absurd expenses, such as costs with catching small animals (birds and others) and with some manual harvests).

In the world, only in 2022, the food industry has already generated around Us$ 14.0 trillion/year, that is, around 14,0% of the total world GDP of Us$ 100.9 trillion (data from the World Bank), with Us$ 8.0 trillion coming from processed foods alone, according to the FAO.

In 2022 alone, according to Forbes, only the industry's 25 largest grains, cereals, food and beverages companies generated Us $ 1.5 trillion in revenue, while industry very high profits grew to more than Us $ 155 billion. Please see at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/chloesorvino/2022/05/12/the-worlds-largest-food-companies-in-2022/ .

In Brazil, total food production in 2021 (“in natura” foods plus processed foods plus beverages, etc.) – main for domestic consumption plus some for export, etc. - reached 270 million tons and was worth around Us$ 232.2 billion (data from ABIA plus KPMG).

In 2022, total U.S. Gross Farm Income (GCFI) reached Us$ 543.0 billion; costs were Us$ 441.0 billion and gross profits were Us$ 163.0 billion, representing, roughly speaking (in my simple, objective and approximate calculation), only about 23.1% as an average rate of extraction of gross profits (gross revenues/costs). Much worse, however, was in 2003 with gross revenues of only Us$ 216.0 billion; costs of Us$ 198.0 billion and gross profits of only Us$ 61.0 billion, that is, equal - roughly speaking (in my simple, objective and approximate calculation) - to only 9.1% as an average rate of extraction of annual and gross profits. The average net income in the United States between 2003 and 2022 - confirmed by analysts there - was only 11.0% by activity (see above), because, even though they received little in terms of participation in the final gross income from agribusiness and food and other items in retail, most rural producers had other family and internal expenses with their activities.

In 2023, a comparative summary of Average Rural Gross Incomes in the three countries in focus shows the following profiles and results, in terms of gross income earned: 1) PER RURAL PRODUCER – USA: Average Gross Income of Us$ 165.0 thousand (for a total of 3.4 million producers in 1.89 million properties); EU: - see more data above/below - Us$ 64.0 thousand and Brazil: - see more data above/below too - Us$ 56.0 thousand; 2) By AREA – USA: with a median Us$ 1.32 thousand/HECTARE/YEAR total habitable/cultivable land (total agricultural + total pasture + forests/extractives); EU: with a very high Us$ 2.25 thousand/HECTARE/YEAR and Brazil with only Us$ 1.00 thousand/HECTARE/YEAR.

So, now demonstrating and comparing recently in 2023 on how, and where, historical or recent low remunerations to rural producers are already configured as among the main reasons for the current and growing socio-environmental chaos in three large producing countries/regions in the world (USA, EU and Brazil), and in order from highest to lowest, we see that the average income per property reached Us$ 2.90 million/year in the USA (due to the high income earned plus many subsidies/incentives received and its few 1.89 million rural properties with 3.4 million producers), that is, worth a high Us$ 165.1 thousand of average annual income per rural producer in 2023; reducing to Us$ 64.0 thousand/rural property/year in the European Union (with 9.1 million mini and small properties, that is, with almost 2 times more properties than Brazil and with almost 5 times more rural properties than in the USA) and to only Us$ 54.0 thousand/rural property in Brazil in 2023, being only Us$ 56.1 thousand/producer/year for our 4.8 million rural producers and with around 5.0 million properties, all according to our recent IBGE Census).

Thus, the many faithful numbers above and below clearly prove that in the World - taking as examples the data, calculations and analyses above for the USA, European Union and Brazil -, with such low participation of rural producers, in % or in Us $ hectare/year or Us $ producer/year, in the final gross or net income of agribusiness or sales of food/beverages/forestry products etc.. Such data and analysis clearly show that, without the participation of the other agents in the chains (described below) there is no way for farmers alone - nor with help from their governments - to finance such fundamental recoveries of soils, subsoils, water sources, air, biomes etc. to continue their activities and still producing a lot for these other agents to profit much more. These other smart agents (i.e., other links in the agribusiness chains) remain silent (without taking clear/legal responsibility or funding the necessary reforms) with the largest share of the final net revenues (90,0% to 95,0%) and, thus, also with the results of the destruction they also left behind (and all in the name of their very high profits plus the expansion of business, family and personal assets for their shareholders and other investors and perhaps even for their Directors, CEO, CFO, CTO, Consultants, etc.).

Still in 2023, comparatively, even worse for Brazilian rural producers before those in the USA, is that while the estimated Gross Income PER RURAL PRODUCER in the USA was, roughly speaking, on average around Us$ 165.1 thousand/producer/year (Gross Rural Income named GCFI “Gross Cash Farm Income” of Us$ 561.2 billion in 2023 (including receiving many subsidies and incentives) - and contemplating a total of around 3.4 million rural producers (not rural properties and ranches that reach only 1.89 million properties in 2023) - in Brazil, the possible expanded Gross Value of Production (the 28 products from the CNA survey plus sales of forest-based products plus extractives) - now converted to US$ - was only Us$ 269.5 billion (= R$ 1.35 trillion) also in 2023, which dividing by 4.8 million rural producers in 2018, according to the IBGE's PNAD Census Institute (from owners to tenants and occupants of 5.0 million rural properties, according to the IBGE's 2017 Census), leads us, roughly speaking, to the very low value of Average Gross Income in Brazil of just Us$ 56.1 thousand/producer/year, IN OTHER WORDS, our Average Gross Income meant just 1/3 of the Average Gross Income obtained by rural producers in the USA (Us S$ 165.1 thousand/person - see above). What's worse is that if we compare it with the annual income obtained PER PROPERTY, it gets much worse in Brazil, because in the USA (income of Us$ 561.2 billion obtained in 1.89 million properties), it reaches a high Us$ 2.9 million per year/rural property, while in Brazil it does not exceed Us$ 0.54 million per year/rural property (income of Us$ 269.5 billion obtained in 5.00 million properties).

In 2023, the average gross revenue in the US (not the final net income/hectare or to the producer, which would have to be calculated from the final sale of all food consumed domestically plus those exported by them) was Us$ 1,323/hectare (GCFI of Us$ 561.2 billion and habitable and arable area (“cropland”), including pastures and savannas/caatingas (“grazing”) of 424.21 million hectares). In Brazil, the same average gross income in the same year was Us$ 1,007/hectare, therefore 23.8% lower in US$ than the USA (Brazil with an expanded GVP of Us$ 269.5 billion and a habitable/arable area (“cropland”) of 267.53 million hectares). In Europe, the same average gross income in 2023 was Us$ 2,254/hectare in Us$ (GVP of Us$ 580.0 billion and a habitable/arable area-pasture of 257.28 million hectares), that is, with a net income per hectare/year 2.20 times more than in Brazil.

In Europe, according to recent data from the World Bank (whose comparable areas – which they call habitable agricultural/pasture areas = sum of arable land plus various pastures plus forests and savannas, are similar to those described below by FAO and USDA-ERS for the World, but for Brazil, by the IBGE and the MapBiomas Consulting), the average gross incomes were very high (as has always been known, although there are many whiners) and almost double that of the USA and triple that of Brazil. Europeans earned an Average Gross Income in 2023 of Us $ 2,254/hectare/year (VBP of Us $ 580.0 billion and habitable/arable area-pastures of 257.28 million hectares), but, in Brazil, the same average gross income in the same year was only Us $ 1,007/hectare, therefore 23.8% lower and in Us $ compared to the USA (Brazil with an expanded VBP of Us $ 269.5 billion and habitable/arable area (“cropland”) of 267.53 million hectares).

So, in Brazil, even with rural producers still earning an average total income -66% lower than that obtained in the US and part of the EU (see above/below) - and only remaining, really and almost historically, with 10%-22% of the final average Gross Revenue added (VBP = production x prices) - the average gross profit extraction rate - and with 05-10% of the final Net Revenue (net rate) in each property (gross revenue of the producer minus mandatory family expenses, not included in the total production costs), Brazil will still be able to almost double its current total cultivated area of 282.5 million hectares (outside of about 28 million hectares of pastures already recovering and, possibly, to be replanted) to up to 491.0 million hectares (with grains, other foods and beverages, livestock that is not yet degraded, forests/extractives, etc.), all to offer and well feed up to 4.0 billion people in the World in 2050 (when the population global food production should stabilize), compared to the 1.6 billion we helped feed in 2021”.

In 2024, worldwide, the US consultancy STATISTA estimates sales of Us$ 9.12 trillion in grains, cereals and food, with a total volume of 2.4 million tons, even though this will generate 2 to 5 times more value than the world's agricultural production itself, that is, adding value of 100.0% to 400.0% (also as minimum profits, as the STATISTA dates too) to the initial value of local purchases or CIF imports of such basic agricultural products. Of the total sold, meat alone will account for Us$ 1.46 trillion, especially for China. Global food production in 2024 alone – according to the powerful US-based global STATISTA Consulting – is expected to reach 2.90 million tons in 2025, with 0.65 million tons of cereals + baked goods and 0.54 million tons of vegetable products.

Additionally, in the US, NOW IN TERMS OF RURALIST FINAL NET INCOME (possible profits, based in initial prices received by farmers in Us $ "versus"/compared % with the prices paid also in Us $ in the many final retailers worldwide plus the income actually earned by each link in the immense and highly profitable chains, especially by their initial links/suppliers of machinery/seeds/fertilizers/pesticides plus by their final links (transporters, processors, distributors, sellers, financiers, investors and speculators). So, this initial and really date - based in several diagnoses by the USDA/ERS - indicates that for every Us $ 1.00 spent by the American consumer on food, only Us$ 0.11 (11%) in net form actually comes from primary agricultural operations, that is, the final remuneration values actually received by rural producers and ranchers are very low (even receiving subsidies, aid and government incentives and others, as the numbers in my other articles show). Thus, American rural producers and ranchers also participate with very little of the final gross income of agribusiness and food industries and, with this, they are also unable - alone (and even with aid/subsidies/incentives/financing from their rich Government) - to really recover, adequately and quickly as is required today, their soils, subsoils, water sources, air, biomes, forests, etc.

Concluding this item, in Brazil, total food production in 2021 (“in natura” foods plus processed foods plus beverages, etc.) - for domestic consumption plus some for export, etc. - reached 270 million tons and was worth approximately Us$ 232.2 billion (data from ABIA plus the KPMG).

b)????? The Evolution of Global Socio-Environmental of Soils, Subsoils, Waters and Air Degradation and Main Trends -

In 2015, a socio-environmental diagnosis by the European Commission indicated that the costs of global degradation had already reached the extremely high figure of Us $ 10.6 trillion per year, equivalent to 17,0% of the global gross domestic product (GDP).

The report noted that 24,0% of the world's productive land was already degraded, causing food insecurity, poverty, lack of drinking water and increased vulnerability in areas affected by the climate change. The initiative estimated that the global loss of ecosystem service values (ESV) was already costing between Us $ 6.3 to Us $ 10.6 billion/year.

If a good sustainable land management were implemented worldwide, up to Us $ 75.6 trillion/year could be added to the global economy through job creation and increased agricultural production.

This diagnosis from 2015 (9 years earlier) had already highlighted that the effects of world soil degradation more desertification were unevenly distributed across human populations and that they often had an impact on the most vulnerable – the rural poor.

It was also the world land degradation and the world desertification that were forcing hundreds of thousands of rural people and rural workers – plus their children, grandchildren and elderly people – to move from their homes to the outskirts and slums of the larger cities – nearby or far away –, creating even more diverse problems in those cities. According to the authors, this continued process could lead to around 50 million world people leaving their homes in the next 10 years, that is, by 2025 (a huge and visible truth today). The fact was that land degradation – reduction of vegetation cover and increased soil erosion – also meant that the land was already less capable of storing carbon, contributing to the climate change too. Changes in land use already represented the second largest source of the greenhouse gas emissions after the combustion of fossil fuels. See https://www.sei.org/features/land-degradation-costs-10-6-trillion-usd-per-year-says-new-report/ .

“The greenhouse gas emissions are measured in carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2 equivalents). This means that each greenhouse gas is weighted by its global warming potential value. Global warming potential measures the amount of warming a gas creates compared to CO2. For CO2 equivalent, this is measured on a 100-year time scale (GWP 100).”

“Therefore, addressing what we eat and how we produce our food plays a key role in combating world climate change, reducing water stress and pollution, restoring lands such as forests or grasslands, and protecting the world’s wildlife.” For more reliable data, see analysis by the World Bank at: https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food?insight=there-are-also-large-differences-in-the-carbon-footprint-of-the-same-foods#key-insights? .

” The source of this data is the meta-analyses of global food systems by Michael Clark et al. (2020), published in Science magazine. The “business as usual” projection makes the following assumptions: the global population increases in line with the UN’s average fertility scenario; “per capita” diets change as people around the world become wealthier (shifting to more diversified diets with more meat and dairy). The crop productivity continues to increase in line with historical improvements; and food loss rates and the emissions intensity of food production remain constant. This is measured in global warming equivalents via much larger volumes of CO2. This takes into account the range of greenhouse gases, not just CO2 but also others such as methane and nitrous oxide.”

In the world and directly, the production of “in natura” food more processed and even “organic” foods were already emitting 40% of the gases that cause the current greenhouse effect, all of this, perhaps even with the excuse of being for the correct total nutrition of the world. The fact is that in recent years, there has been rapid advances in the devastation of the various world biomes, reaching 20% in the recent world and 25% in Brazil. See more data on the “Environmental impacts of food production” at https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food .

Also, together they already consumed 30% to 40% of the global energy – sustainable, average or unsustainable – of the planet, that is, they both pollute a lot (especially the air, water and subsoil), and require energy devastation, such as high demands for electricity, improper, even for thermoelectric plants and petroleum derivatives.

Together, they already cover 40.0% of the planet's land with crops from their rural producers and, worse, the global food sector alone already uses, in many ways including with high losses, 70.0% of the fresh water available on the planet (source: Getty). Around 199.8 million liters of water are needed per second. Water is becoming increasingly scarce each year, especially in the USA and Europe.

This has become much more acute in world in the last 40 years, mainly due to the still increasing degradation of agriculture, forestry and extractive activities, etc., due to the misuse and abandonment of soils, subsoils, water sources, aquifers, air, biota and others, all resulting from the unfair and irregular and even criminals (many breaches of contract around the world) for good final and fair distribution of the high gross revenues generated by their intensive exploitation.

“For the World Bank analysts (WBG) also cite that ? to 1/3 of global greenhouse gas emissions come from our food systems, and these differences come from the inclusion of non-food agricultural products – such as textiles, biofuels and industrial crops – as well as uncertainties in food waste and emissions from land use. The rest comes from energy. Although world energy plus (non-food) industry contributes more than food, we need to address both the food and the energy systems to tackle climate change.”

“Ignoring world emissions from the food and the agriculture industries is simply not an option if we are to get anywhere near our international climate targets. Even if we stopped burning fossil fuels tomorrow – which is impossible – we would still fall far short of our 1.5° C target and would almost miss our -2° C target.”

“For the World Bank analysts, in a scenario of maintaining the “status quo”, the authors expect the world to emit around 1,356 billion tons of CO2 by 2100”.

According to the World Bank, in 2023, world food production, plus its basic supplier – grains, cereals, “in natura” products, organic products, livestock, fish, forestry and extractive products, etc. – have major environmental impacts in several ways and with the following environmental impacts, whether individual or combined, namely:

1)??????? World food production is responsible for more than a quarter (26.0%) of global greenhouse gas emissions;

2) Half of the world's habitable land is used for agriculture. Habitable land is land free of ice and desert;

3) About 70.0% of global freshwater withdrawals are used for agriculture;

4) About 78.0% of global eutrophication of oceans and freshwater is caused by agriculture. Eutrophication is the pollution of watercourses with nutrient-rich water;

5) Approximately 94.0% of non-human world mammal biomass comes from livestock. This means that livestock outnumber wild mammals by a factor of 15 to 1. This share is 97.0% when only terrestrial mammals are included;

6) Approximately 71.0% of world bird biomass is poultry. This means that the global poultry population outnumbers wild birds by a factor of more than 3 to 1.”

“Of the approximately 1/4 (26%) of global greenhouse gas emissions from food and by agricultural production, these mainly include emissions from land use changes plus agricultural production, processing, transportation, packaging and retail.”

“We can divide these world emissions from the food system into 5 major categories, namely:

1)??? About 30.0% of world food emissions come directly from livestock and fishing. Ruminant livestock – mainly cattle, sheep, goats, camelids – for example, produce methane through their digestive processes. Manure and pasture management also fall into this category;

2) ?Only 1.0% comes from world wild fishing, most of which is fuel consumption by fishing vessels;

3) Agricultural production is responsible for about a quarter of world food emissions. This includes crops for human consumption and animal feed;

4) Current, the land use is responsible for 24.0% of world food emissions. Twice as many emissions result from land use for livestock (16.0%) as for crops for human consumption (8.0%)”;

5) “Finally, supply chains are responsible for 18.0% of world emissions from food. This includes food processing, distribution, transportation, packaging and retail.”

For the World Bank (WBG) staff too, when we compare the world carbon footprint of different types of food, a clear hierarchy emerges. Meat and dairy products tend to emit more greenhouse gases than plant-based foods. This is true whether we compare on the basis of mass per kilogram, per kilocalorie or per gram of protein.” “Within meat and dairy products, there is also a consistent pattern: larger animals tend to be less efficient and have a larger footprint. Beef typically has the highest emissions; followed by lamb; pork; chicken; then eggs and fish.”

These data present global average values. For some foods – such as beef – there are large differences depending on where they are produced and the farming practices used. However, the lowest-carbon beef and lamb still have a larger carbon footprint than most plant-based foods. The source of this data is the meta-analyses of global food systems by Joseph Poore and Thomas Nemecek (2018), published in science magazine. Environmental impacts are calculated based on life cycle analyses that consider impacts across the supply chain, including land use changes, on-farm emissions, production of agricultural inputs such as fertilizers and pesticides, food processing, transportation, packaging and retail.”

Thus, “the most effective way to reduce world greenhouse gas emissions from the food system is to change what we eat. Adopting a more plant-based diet, while reducing our consumption of high-carbon foods such as meat and dairy – especially beef and lamb – is an effective way for consumers to reduce their carbon footprint.”

“But there are also opportunities to reduce world emissions by optimizing more carbon-efficient practices and locations for producing food. For some foods – particularly beef, lamb and dairy – there are large differences in emissions depending on how and where they are produced.”

“Producing 100 grams of beef protein emits 25 kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2 eq) on average, but this ranges from 9 kilograms to 105 kilograms of CO2 equivalent, i.e., a 10-fold difference.”

“Optimizing production in locations where these world foods are produced with a smaller footprint could be another effective way to reduce global emissions.”

“In these cases, the source of this World Bank data is the meta-analyses of global food systems by Joseph Poore and Thomas Nemecek (2018), published in science magazine. This dataset covers analyses of 38,700 commercially viable farms in 119 countries and 40 commodities. Environmental impacts are calculated based on life-cycle analyses that consider impacts across the supply chain, including land-use changes, on-farm emissions, production of agricultural inputs such as fertilizers and pesticides, food processing, transportation, packaging, and retail. Greenhouse gas emissions are measured in carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2 equivalents). This means that each greenhouse gas is weighted by its global warming potential value. Global warming potential measures the amount of warming a gas creates compared to CO2. For CO2 equivalent, this is measured on a 100-year time scale (GWP 100).

” By 2023, and already reporting specifically on the degradation of the world's waters and aquifers, for the important World NGO WWF, the global water crisis already threatened/reached Us $ 58.0 trillion/year (equivalent to 60% of global GDP), both in economic value and in food security and sustainability. Since 1970, the world has lost 1/3 of its remaining wetlands, while freshwater wildlife populations have fallen by an average of 83%.

His disastrous trend has contributed to a growing number of people facing water scarcity and food insecurity as rivers and lakes have dried up, pollution has increased, and food sources such as freshwater fisheries have declined.

The degradation of rivers, lakes, wetlands and aquifers threatens their global economic value and their irreplaceable role in maintaining not only global food security but also human and planetary health.

The WWF report also found that direct economic benefits, such as water consumption for households, irrigated agriculture and industries, amount to at least Us$ 7.5 trillion annually. It also estimated that the invisible benefits – which include water purification, improved soil health, carbon storage and protection of communities from extreme floods and droughts – are seven times greater, at around Us$ 50.0 trillion annually.

But the world’s freshwater ecosystems are in a downward spiral, posing an ever-increasing risk to these economic values. See more data at https://wwfcee.org/news/wwf-report-the-high-cost-of-cheap-water .

In the case of the repeated and very numerous socio-environmental damages caused by its cattle ranching, Brazil is seriously harmed in view of the data and report presented above and below, and with good reason. We have the largest commercial herd in the world (220 million head - compared to our 215 million people - and of which 40.0 million bovines are slaughtered/year = 10.0 million tons/year, of which 33% are for export) and, therefore, we already have around 282.5 million hectares of pastures for its uses, but at least 10% of them are already directly and highly degraded by the continuous use (= 28.0 million hectares) and that require expensive costs for restoration - see above. In fact, if it were not for our clean more really sustainable production of agricultural biofuels for world uses (sugarcane ethanol + corn ethanol + DDGS corn feed + biodiesel + soybean oil and meal + palm oil, etc.) our socio-environmental and energy balance would already be seriously harmed compared to the world.

So, in the specific case of Brazil, even worse, is that recently, the powerful FGV Brazil released an excellent diagnosis on the total costs for the country, more by biome and by state, only for ALREADY DEGRADED PASTURES, necessary/fundamental to recover our soils and forests, now, the already degraded areas (including to recover about 56% of our pastures) for all of Brazil, reaching the very high value of Us $ 77.5 billion and that neither Brazilian farmers nor the central and/or state governments have the means to dispose of – alone – or even finance, because they have hundreds of other priorities for the poorest (urgent sanitation, immediate slum clearance, adequate housing, public transportation, garbage solutions, roads, etc.). Y also including possible measures for about 8 years now, with the continuous and even announced devastations and floods, resulting precisely from the severe climate changes that our country (Brazil) is already going through (especially in the states of RS, SC, SP, RJ, MG and PE). by such climate changes, exactly resulting from/caused by our wrong use of soils, subsoils, water, air, waste, etc. See complete data from FGV in the excellent and unprecedented diagnosis “Costs of recovering degraded pastures in Brazilian states and biomes” - with the needs and demands for miraculous recovery resources - by State and Biome at: https://agro.fgv.br/sites/default/files/2023-02/costs_of_recovering_degraded_pastures_in_the_brazilian_states_and_biomes_0.pdf??

c) About My 09 Simple, Humble and very Cheap Proposals to be Debated, Analyzed and Implemented etc. ALL for Possible Socioenvironmental World Progressive Measures for Possible Solutions to the Immense and Many Crescents Problems -

Below, I take the bold step of presenting 09 initial suggestions for world urgent to analysis, to debate and to possible global implementation (in Brazil, under the coordination of EMBRAPA and the State Secretariats for the environment only), namely:

1) Creation of a Global Socio-Environmental Recovery Tax, minimum of 5.0%, - to be credited and to managed only by a UN? more WBG Socio-Environmental Fund - levied on proven annual Gross Profit for 20 years and of ALL agents participating in the huge profits of agribusiness and supplies more manufacturing, more transportation more sales, etc. of all foods, beverages, hydro, wood and rural coal energy, ethanol/biodiesel/green H2, biogas, singás, wood, cellulose, organics (i.e., that sells and makes a lot of profit, silently before the gates of the farms more after the gates of farms too) and levied/collected in final retail - not on rural production, i.e., not inside the gates - but on industries of inputs, seeds/seedlings, agrochemicals, machinery, storage, external and internal transporters, insurance companies, brokers, stock exchange operations and similar, etc.;

2) To Promote the listing and protective isolation/award-winning of world devastated areas, starting or already in the phase of real agroforestry recovery and in degraded pastures (except with specimens for the production of cellulose and similar, recently named by BBC Brazil, unfortunately, as the “green deserts”) and only if through replanting with some fast trees well listed/analyzed in this article more below and/or corn for ethanol and even sugarcane for ethanol – see below too (with these agricultural sources already proven to be very fast, giant and verifiable global sustainable CO2 sequesters (not only clean sequester) in fast and cyclical crops, reaching -, through much larger and much faster and more intense photosynthesis - as below described - to be 11 times CO2 sequestration more than by just the beautiful centuries-old trees of the Amazon and other world forests or for productive specimens except for cellulose or similar productions. The listing would be for a minimum of 20 years (the maximum period required for modern forest and biome recovery), along the lines of how the UNESCO works with historical heritage sites;

3) To Encourage, via cheap credits or tax exemptions and even subsidies, World Forest protection and recovery, for a minimum of 20 years, through assumptions by International or internal Funds such as “Trusts”, “Heritage Funds”, “Family and/or Patrimonial funds” and Green Funds such as national Brazilian PNHR/RPPN example (the Private and Natural Heritages Reserves – See in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_natural_heritage_reserve_(Brazil);

4) To Intensify, to finance cheaply and to subsidize brand new technologies for manufacturing/disseminating/using/exporting as the so-called: “Brazilian micro hybrid ethanol reformers for direct and only internal production of H2 for direct electric vehicles” – not storable because high risks and costs (technology in the final R&D Brazil phase by USP and Unicamp/INOVA University and others worldwide in Brazil). Now, it is known that ethanol already has very high proven results in reducing global CO2 emissions from vehicles (although emissions combined by all means of transportation worldwide only represent 25% of total global CO2 emissions) and when such a reformer, cheap and simple as above, is widely manufactured and disseminated, there will be very rapid and much cheaper production of internal H2 for conversions of fleets from petroleum derivatives for electric vehicles, an almost immediate goal for many countries in the world. It is also no secret that the external production of green H2 (supply in future networks that are very difficult, high risks and very expensive to implement) - and with the use of sustainable solar, wind and even small hydroelectric power sources -, in addition to taking much of our clean energy, which is already sustainable and essential, now and in the future (considering our necessary and highly polluting thermoelectric plants in many moments). In the current global networks that are already implemented and even already paid for (to guarantee supplies and lower electricity costs for the poorest families), such external production of green H2, as still proposed, especially in the northeast of Brazil, is up to 5 times more expensive than from other dirty sources, but already very available. Also, it is extremely dangerous and much more expensive for internal and external transportation (dependent on heavy ships powered by petroleum derivatives). Also, its productions we know that to consume 25% more energy than it produces and that sequesters a lot of quality water for this (56 liters/01 kg of H2) that we already demand a lot (which tends to increase future demand, especially in the northeast of Brazil);

5) To Promote major innovations that truly world produce electrical really sustainable energy – plus gigantic environmental cleanups – truly sustainable and much cheaper. They will be their own and/or collective and/or neighboring producers and suppliers, and all through local/regional hybridizations through microregional treatments of a lot of gross raw waste (MSW), biomass, waste, leftovers, pruning, tire scraps, clothing, etc. Everything will go to large-scale production of singás fuel (synthetic gas), purified by washing and other procedures and filtrations, and which does not produce CO2 (only common carbonic acids and even sold as innocent carbonated salts) via technologies that do not yet exist in Brazil, but are common and have been used for decades in Asia, the USA, Europe, etc. (not at all contaminating as occurs in the recent specialized plant next to the old sanitary Brazil landfill in the Mafra City – State of SC and from where it already removes 50% of the deliveries of raw and wet urban waste to already generate 2.1 MWh with 90 t./raw/day of regional municipal gross waste) and/or for biomethane/biogas (these are still contaminants and contain methane and nothing can leak and which has to be, in fact, 100% burned);

6) To Invest, to Build and to Install, urgently, world modern systems for full, well-calculated and very well-managed protection against floods and new devastations until pre announced and cyclical in our Brazil seaside and riverside cities (especially in some seaside/riverside cities in RS, SC, SP, RJ, BA, MG and PE) and even against droughts, all with quick constructions - and much cheaper than bearing the immense future losses that they will prevent - plus with correct operations and good maintenance of thousands of new and cheap PCH (Small hydroelectric plants) and/or hundreds of small flow-controlling dams (as is already done a lot in Japan, China, the USA and even, recently, in the Itajaí Valley in the State of Santa Catarina - Brazil) and, above all, good electrical generators and employers/developmentalists/irrigators;

?7) To Encourage/finance/subsidize, really, some good world or Brazilian projects/examples and actions to reinforce/expand real preservation and/or socio-environmental reconversions for the good (as Heineken Brazil has been doing since 2007 with donations of 7.0 million forest seedlings/year - see in Portuguese https://exame.com/esg/projeto-de-reflorestamento-da-heineken-com-a-sos-mata-atlantica-aumenta-em-20-volume-de-agua-em-itu/ ) more in production and exports of much more industrialized foods, more in products tracked and labeled with seals of origin (“terroir”) and “fair trade” etc., more in insertion of data with positive, real and lasting socio-environmental actions in advertisements (authorized/encouraged) in corporate balance sheets (with everything even as our examples for the World and its wild capitalists);

8) To Create/finance/subsidize/reward/demand from the City Halls etc. of Brazil, a large and comprehensive integrated/group Program for the production and donation of billions of seedlings of only some trees, free of charge and even encouraged/mandatory, and in the minimum amount of 5% of new rural financing for any purpose, including the cost/sales of all sizes, types and locations of agricultural properties, with this part being interest-free and with a term of up to 10 years to return. There would be participation and inspections only by Universities, EMATER (Rural Extension more Education farms Public System) and similar institutions, Federal/State public schools, agricultural institutions, plus by the “S” System, Rotary Clubs, Lions Clubs, Freemasons, etc., if there were truly interested participants) and it would only occur in the 3,666 most agricultural municipalities in the country. Everything would be to implement more to promote well-designed/well-implemented reforestation, prioritizing areas that have already been proven to be degraded/eroded, and only with new trees - not as pretty, but much faster (with growth of up to 2.5 m/year), that is, with much more photosynthesis due to their much larger surface area with leaves and stems (scientifically measured in kg/hectare/year). They are giant collectors - already very scientifically proven - and of much more CO2/hectare/year. Also, projects and actions would be included for the full resuscitation of thousands of old water sources, now abandoned/dried up, PLUS their subsoils and biomes, etc.). Some of these new fast trees (such as the white angico or the balsa wood or the Parica tree, etc., plus cocoa tree, a?aí tree, guarana tree and several other fruit trees growing in the forest, as long as such fast trees) are already able - proven in the laboratory and in the field - to sequester up to 11 times more CO2 per hectare/year than the centuries-old, very tall and simply beautiful old trees, immense and with giant canopies in the Amazon rainforest and other forests around the world, where them scientists also have the courage to measure and to disclose such data. Such heights, such ages and such giant crowns with up to 30 m2 in diameter of the current Amazonian trees do not allow water to descend to the bottom of the new roots below and are also very impeditive to growth and, therefore, to the much greater sequestration of CO2/hectare/year, which would be much more possible by the other young trees, daughters, granddaughters and smaller trees and the lower floors - See my recent article in English with all this comparative data on forests in the USA and in Brazil too;

9) To Promote strong financial incentives/subsidies by Brazil Federal and State Governments, plus investments by Pension Funds, Investment Funds and Sector Funds too (such as the creation of a new Special Plan for financing/investments in long-term partnerships and even interest-free to install new distilleries, but also to rapidly expand environmentally revolutionary agricultural crops - even as our global socio-environmental example -, such as corn for DDGS/ethanol - which can already provide up to 04 environmental gains combined - plus agave ethanol, etc.). The DDGS “Distiller's Dried Grains with Soluble” is a by-product (a type of feed that is much cheaper for feeding pigs, poultry, dairy cows, sheep, goats, fish, etc.) and is released in large volumes in the production of ethanol with corn and that contains a high protein content, only a little less than in expensive soybean meal. Also, actions by the Federal Government and the Funds to promote/incentivize/legalize the issuance of debentures and/or specific IPOs for this purpose on our new the B3 Brazil Stock Exchange (former the BMF-BOVESPA Exchange) could be very welcome.

?END

?Brasília (DF Federal District) and Capital of Brazil more at Porto Seguro City (State of BA) on August 21, 2024

?Thank you for your readings, analyses and sharing.

?“The VIVAMELHOR AMBIENTAL BRAZIL THINK TANK” (a modern and faster socioenvironmental/green & sustainable Energies Brazilian “Think Tank).

?For further details, please contact me only by email at [email protected]