PRODUCTION SYSTEMS AND ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY: COMPARISON BETWEEN DAIRY FARMS IN MINAS GERAIS

Objective: Analyse the differences in sustainability performance between pasture and confined dairy farms located south of Minas Gerais state. Theoretical framework: It is observed in the literature that the effects of the intensification of dairy production on the three pillars of sustainability are not completely clear, depending on specific locations of production systems and requiring further studies. Method: The performance of six properties in the pasture system and six properties in the confined system was analysed using the Sustainability Indicator in Agro ecosystems (ISA), which uses a set of 21 other indicators grouped into seven sub-indexes involving socioeconomic and environmental dimensions. Results and conclusion: Environmental balance was the dimension with the lowest average final index of the 12 properties; this is explained probably by producers' increased attention to economic and social issues, especially concerning labour inspection. Environmental issues, even with the high interest of society in recent years, do not receive attention with the same intensity as others. Comparing the indicators of the two production systems, productivity was the only one that presented a statistically significant difference, using the Mann-Whitney U test. Research implications: With the survey for calculating the indicators, it was possible to understand the relationship between productivity and socioeconomic and environmental sustainability, in addition to presenting solutions to improve the adequacy of the properties, with actions that will mitigate the vulnerabilities of the properties studied.


INTRODUCTION
Dairy farming is of great social and economic relevance in Brazil.The country has over one million milk-producing properties, predominantly small and medium-sized properties, employing approximately 4 million people (MAPA, 2019).In addition, Brazil is the fourth largest producer of milk in the world, preceded by India, Pakistan, and the United States of America (FAO, 2021), having produced 35.4 billion litters in 2020, with 16.1 million dairy cows.The state of Minas Gerais was the largest producer in the country, with 9.7 billion litters, equivalent to 27% of the national production (Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics, 2020).
Over the past two decades, milk production in Brazil has increased by around 80%, using virtually the same number of milked cows, thanks to increased herd productivity.Other changes occurred in the production structure, including a significant reduction in the number of producers and the intensification of production systems.Thus, due to the adoption of new technologies, it was possible to increase significantly the productivity of animals, land, and labour, and consequently, the scale of production on farms (Rocha et al., 2020).
Productivity and property management are related directly to milk production systems.According to Sorio (2018), the usual farming system in Brazil is extensive in pastures.Nevertheless, there are methods more technical using supplementation with roughage and concentrates (semi-intensive) in addition to intensive confinement systems, especially in regions of increased production and productivity.
According to the Centre for Advanced Studies in Applied Economics -CEPEA (2022), since 2020, Brazilian dairy farming has undergone a migration from semi-confined systems to systems with total confinement of lactating cows.According to this report, surveys identified a change in the productive profile of dairy farms in important producing regions of the country, such as western Paraná, Santa Catarina, Rio Grande do Sul, and southern Minas Gerais.
For Bewley et al. (2017), in confined systems, it is possible to unite the main elements that generate efficiency in dairy farming, cost reduction, and revenue increase, both in total volumes and in value per litter.According to the authors, it is an alternative that tends to increase the average production per animal, in addition to providing better use of arable land (Bewley et al., 2017).However, the effects of this intensification on the environmental impact of milk production are not completely clear (Bava et al., 2014).In Brazil, few studies seek to relate technical and economic efficiencies with environmental efficiency in milk production (Almeida & Bacha, 2021).
Authors such as Bava et al. (2014), Chobtang et al. (2017), Jan et al. (2019), and Soteriades et al. (2016) demonstrated that intensification can generate adverse environmental effects, such as deforestation, biodiversity loss, and greenhouse gas emissions negatively relating environmental sustainability with milk/cow production and with the use of corn silage and concentrates obtained outside the property.
On the other hand, Berre et al. (2014) showed that it is possible to maximize milk production while minimizing environmental impacts working with different scenarios in a tropical region.Ryan et al. (2016) and Benoit & Laignel (2010) demonstrated that the bestperforming dairy farms, from an economic point of view, also tend to be the best-performing ones from the point of view of environmental sustainability.
Thus, while some studies suggest a clear trade-off between increased production and environmental sustainability, others show the possibility of reconciling economic sustainability and environmental quality.Given the trend towards intensified production in Brazil´s dairy farming industry, adopting confined systems, this study aimed to compare the sustainability performance of dairy farms located south of Minas Gerais that use pasture and those that use confined systems.For this purpose, the Sustainability Indicator in Agro ecosystems (ISA) was used to analyse the performance of both groups.After analysing the differences, changes were proposed to improve the sustainability of the surveyed properties.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Dairy production has been increasing in intensity, as production scales require more investment for greater financial returns.Increasing production volumes leads to better prices per litter and the dilution of fixed costs.In this way, it is possible to unite the main elements that generate efficiency in dairy farming: cost reduction and revenue increase, both in total volumes and value per litter.Thus, the number of confinements for dairy cows is increasing, as it is an alternative that tends to raise the average production per animal, in addition to providing better use of arable areas (Bewley et al., 2017).
In Brazil, three intensive confinement systems are used for milk production: free stall, compost barn, and feed lane.The free stall system, which was created in 1960 in the United States, consists of a shed with individual beds (usually made of sand) and free access for the animals to concrete corridors that lead to a concrete track with feeders and drinkers, in addition to the milking parlour (Albright, 1964).
The compost barn system was first developed in Minnesota, USA 2001.It involves a shared shed for all cows, with a bedding area made of wood shavings, coffee straws, or other materials that can absorb moisture and provide carbon to facilitate the composting process, along with animal waste.There is a feeding track typically made of concrete with bulky troughs and drinking fountains (Barberg et al., 2007).Compost barn systems in Brazil show a wide range of variations in their designs, dimensions, and materials used for their creation.There are also differences in management practices and a lack of effective support from agricultural research.Some of these characteristics do not align with recommended values in the literature.This can lead to significant difficulties in handling and operating the system (Oliveira et al., 2019;Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária, 2020).Another production system is the confined system, where animals are given bulky and concentrated feed in troughs throughout the year, just like in the previous systems.However, they are kept in open areas without paving or covering, with free access to a concrete track where they receive their food.
Numerous studies have been conducted to comprehend the environmental impact of these various milk production systems.According to a meta-analysis conducted by Lorenz et al. (2019) with 30 other studies, increased milk production, pasture consumption, and feed efficiency significantly reduced the carbon footprint of milk, regardless of the production system used.In addition, despite the lower production, the pasture system still offers a competitive climate impact.Laca et al. (2020) found that the carbon footprint of milk was determined mainly by the livestock feeding system and gas emissions.According to these authors, the pasture system provides environmental benefits due to the lower use of forage purchased outside the property, while allowing for the production of milk and meat within the same system.In contrast, Zhu & Lansink (2022) conducted a study on German dairy farms and found that an increase in productivity caused a reduction in environmental sustainability, more pronounced than in the economic and social dimensions.For Soteriades et al. (2016), the degree of environmental sustainability in intensive dairy farming varies depending on the specific farming systems and conditions.Nevertheless, they observed that self-sufficient farms might be more favourable due to their relatively low land costs and agro-environmental programs to maintain pastures.
However, in Brazil, a study conducted by Gazola et al. (2018) in the state of Paraná tested an indicator on 152 properties and found that dairy production systems with larger scales and higher productivity had better sustainability indicators in the environmental dimension, followed by the economic and social dimensions.Reinforcing this result, the authors propose, as public and private strategies, the definition of actions aimed at increasing the scale of production and productivity in the systems, as well as actions that promote greater access to information and training so that rural producers can make low risk decisions to achieve social, economic and environmental sustainability.
It is observed, therefore, that the effects of the intensification of dairy production on the three pillars of sustainability are not completely clear, depending on production systems, specific locations, and requiring further studies.
In addition, in Brazil, there is resistance from landowners to change their ways of using and managing natural resources, the lack of full effectiveness of the instruments of the Forest Code, the National Water Resources Policy, and the Environmental Protection Area on the management of natural resources within private rural properties (Chiodi & Souza, 2022).Reducing resistance to sustainability is a crucial goal for companies.Adapting their activities to sustainability contributes to the use of natural resources such as energy and water as well as to the reduction of waste (Grejo & Lunkes, 2022).

Data Source
For this work, the Sustainability Indicator in Agro ecosystems (ISA) was applied in six properties with milk production on pasture and six with confined systems (compost barn (04), free stall (01), and tract track (01)), located in the south of Minas Gerais, from March to October 2021.In general, pasture production in this region relies on tropical forages as the primary source of roughage in the hot and humid months (October to March) and bulky feed in the trough, such as silages and chopped sugar cane in the periods of low temperature and humidity of the year (April to September).

The Environmental Sustainability Indicator (ISA)
ISA uses a set of 21 indicators grouped into seven sub-indexes involving the economic, social, and environmental dimensions (Ferreira et al., 2012), as shown in Table 1.For a more thorough explanation of ISA and its indicators, please refer to EPAMIG (2023).
For each of the 21 indicators, an index ranging from 0 to 1 is generated, obtained from functions that attribute value to the variables, when comparing the value measured in the establishment with the reference value, using weighting factors for each parameter rated.Next, a final index, also in the range of 0 to 1, is calculated from the simple arithmetic average of the scores assigned to the indicators.A score of 0.7 is considered the base value, or sustainability threshold, for good environmental, social, and economic performance.
The ISA system allows, after completing the spreadsheet, to identify the indicators below the 0.7 baseline and, together with the person responsible for the enterprise, to draw up a socioeconomic and environmental adequacy plan (PASEA) for the property, aiming to correct the critical points found on the property over time.6 In the economic balance, productivity and sales price were identified and compared with technical references in the region.The income profile and diversification were evaluated to determine if the property is solely focused on one product for production.Asset development was also identified, where investments in improvements in production infrastructure are evaluated, in addition to the degree of indebtedness of the property and the enterprise.
For the social balance, the availability of essential services to the families and employees of producers was evaluated, in addition to food security around the residences, considering the existence of vegetable gardens, orchards, and creations for self-consumption.The level of education and participation in courses aimed at agrosilvopastoral activities are also evaluated, and finally, the quality of occupation and employment generated on the property is observed.
The environmental balance refers to evaluating how well waste and effluents are managed on the property, as well as the quality of surface and underground water used.It also involves assessing the risk of water contamination from pesticides.The stage of degradation and conservation practices in the production areas are also evaluated.The state of conservation of native vegetation, permanent preservation areas (APPs), and legal reserve (RL), in addition to the diversification of the agricultural landscape, are evaluated as well.
Once the indicators were obtained, the post-hoc test associated with the Kruskal-Wallis test, in this case the U of Mann Whitney was carried out to detect which were similar or different between the two production systems.For this purpose, the maximum, minimum, and median values of each indicator were analysed.

Characterization of Properties and Survey of Indicators
Table 2 shows the main characteristics of the 12 surveyed properties, with cases 1 to 6 in the pasture system and cases 7 to 12 in the confined system used to obtain the sustainability indicators.
In the economic balance, as seen in Figure 1, the productivity indicator average in the confined system (0.93) was higher than in the pasture system (0.78), indicating that the production per area (L/ha) and per animal (L/cow) is higher in the confined system.Confined systems showed greater specialization in dairy production, focusing on a single product, a fact that is evidenced by the lower average income diversity (0.71) compared to the pasture system (0.78), in which producers earn income from other activities, such as grain and even small-scale agro-industrialization.
The average asset development of properties in the confined systems (0.80) was higher than that of properties in the pasture system (0.78) because confined properties invested more in machinery, equipment, and facilities to optimize their production and productivity.The indicator of the degree of indebtedness of the confined system was lower (0.86) than the average of the pasture system (0.93), despite the nominal values of the debts of the confined properties being high.However, the overall wealth of these properties is much higher than that of the pasture system.On the social balance (Figure 2), it is shown that basic services provided to the families of workers living in the pasture system properties have a higher average score (0.90) compared to those in the confined system (0.81).This can be explained by the fact that the properties in the pasture system are mainly managed by the owners, with few employees, and invest more in the components of this indicator than the farms in the confined system, with more hired employees.The level of education in the confined system was higher (0.85) than the average of the pasture system (0.82) showing a greater emphasis on investing in education in the confined system, possibly due to its more technical nature.The occupation and employment indicator was also higher in the confined system (0.76) compared to the average of the pasture system (0.72), which can be explained by greater attention to labour legislation when employees are hired.
The management score for confined system properties (0.88) was higher compared to the pasture system´s score (0.72).This suggests that there was more investment in using specialized techniques to manage confined properties.
Finally, the indicator: commercialization and innovation, showed no difference between the systems, presenting an average of 0.88.Probably due to the high presence of cooperatives and producer associations in the region and the adequate access to digital information currently accessible to all producers.Out of the 12 properties, the environmental balance was the dimension with the lowest average final index (0.61).The confined system got a slightly higher average score (0.61) compared to the pasture system´s average (0.59).This situation is probably explained by greater attention paid by producers, regardless of the production system, to economic issues focused primarily on remaining in the market, and social ones, mainly concerning inspection regarding labour legislation.Environmental issues, even with the high interest of society in recent years, do not receive attention with the same intensity as the other dimensions.
As shown in Figure 3, the waste management indicator was identified as the most critical point among the 21 indicators evaluated in the ISA across the 12 properties.Despite this, as environmental inspections come closer to the properties, combined with the guidance of economic and environmental gains in the treatment and use of waste, many systems have been successfully implemented in the region.
As for the Work Safety indicator, the average obtained was 0.59, with a trend towards better performance in confined properties (average 0.70), compared to those in the pasture system (average 0.44).The three properties within the pasture system, properties 1, 4, and 6, fell below the threshold of 0.7.In this case, property 6 had the lowest index (0.12) because it did not use personal protective equipment (PPE) to apply pesticides and did not have a suitable place to store products and empty packaging for return.In addition, it is even subject to penalties by the supervisory body of the State of Minas Gerais, in this case, the Instituto Mineiro de Agropecuária (IMA) or the Environmental Military Police.
After assessing the soil's fertility, it was found that all properties fall below the sustainability threshold.Case 1, which is in the pasture system, obtained the lowest sub-index (0.27).One possible reason for the low average could be that the ISA survey utilizes a soil analysis report obtained from the property to calculate this indicator.However, many properties have available only an analysis of the worst piece of land or area that, for many years, has been used for planting corn silage in a conventional system with a harvest followed by a second crop of corn and without a cover crop in winter, which causes soil depletion.Livestock Integration 9 Practice (ILP) has been widely adopted in the region as a means of improving soil structure and fertility.It involves the use of cover crops during the winter season.10 Likewise, for Water Quality, the overall average score was 0.66, which falls below the sustainability threshold.The average score for the pasture system was 0.68, while the confined system had an average score of 0.64.Among the 12 evaluated properties, 05 cases (1, 3, 8, 9, and 10) had a sub-index greater than the threshold.This outcome shows an increased focus on safeguarding and preserving nature, demonstrated by fencing and replanting native species in permanent preservation areas as outlined in the Brazilian Forestry Code (BRASIL, 2012).There is also an effort to construct structures, albeit basic, to capture water from springs effectively.The non-observance of the legislation about the humid APP in the surroundings of the water bodies, as well as the lack of protection of springs, are among the factors responsible for the low scores of the properties.
Regarding the Water Contamination Risk indicator, its average was 0.46, making it the second lowest average among the 21 indicators.The pasture system had an average of 0.60, and the confined system had an average of 0.32.Only cases 2, 3, and 4, all in the pasture system, reached values above the sustainability threshold, with a value of 1.In the confined system, none of the 06 properties reached the threshold of 0.7.These results are probably explained by a further intensification of confined properties with greater use of inputs, especially pesticides, without due care in use, storage, planting systems with soil inversion, production areas close to watercourses, etc.
One limitation of the ISA tool survey is that it does not evaluate leased areas or noncontiguous areas of the property, even though they are used for input production, like forage and grains.In this study, cases 1, 3, and 4 had leased areas for growing silage and grain corn using pesticides.However, these areas were not assessed by ISA.The survey does not take into account the potential risks of water and soil contamination in these areas.On the other hand, the confined properties had own production areas which were assessed by ISA.
When observing the values found for the indicator Degraded Soils, the average value for the properties was 0.58, which falls below the sustainability threshold of 0.7.Specifically, properties in the pasture system scored 0.54, while those in the confined system scored 0.62.Note that among all the properties in the pasture system, only case 2 obtained a value that exceeded the threshold (0.76).On the other hand, in the confined system, cases 08, 09, and 10 all reached the threshold of 0.7.A possible justification for the low performance of this indicator is that most properties in the region, as well as those evaluated in the project, still use the conventional corn planting system for silage production, often followed by off-season and without the use of winter cover crops.
Regarding Conservation Practices, the global average of the indicator in the 12 properties was 0.79, and both those in the pasture and confined systems obtained the same average result, in which all cases obtained values above the threshold.However, the 12 cases and many livestock properties in the region still have old and outdated equipment and do not use direct planting in straw, work with exposed soil, and without making significant investments in soil conservation., For the indicator Roads, the global average of the 12 properties was 0.66, and only one property in the pasture system, case 5, obtained a value lower than the threshold (0.54); the pasture system obtained an average slightly higher (0.67) than the confined system (0.66).Overall, there are currently no significant problems with access and production flow.However, maintenance measures such as reinforcing the bed and implementing flood prevention structures like small dams and catchment boxes are still lacking.
Regarding Native Vegetation, the average indicator of the 12 properties was above the threshold, reaching 0.71.Generally, the remaining areas in the studied properties and the region are protected by the producers and inspected by the competent body.
The indicator APP averaged 0.49.All 06 properties in the pasture system obtained values below the threshold.The confined system obtained an average of 0.51, with only case 1 reaching the threshold of 0.7.The result indicates a general scenario of lack of inspection and information, and awareness of the producers, including those educated, in complying with federal and state legislation that recommends non-access of domestic animals to APP areas through fencing.
The indicator Legal Reserve averaged 0.73, with pasture 0.70 and confined 0.75.It was found that all 12 properties had already prepared the Rural Environmental Registry (CAR -Cadastro Ambiental Rural), reaching the sustainability threshold, except for case 12.This fact demonstrates that the environmental legislation is complied with regarding the Legal Reserve and reinforces the importance of laws and public policies that determine aspects and levels of sustainability to be achieved by producers.
Landscape Diversification averaged 0.67, with the average of the 06 pasture properties at 0.64 and the 06 confined properties at 0.73.Only cases 1 (0.73) and 6 (0.70) managed to obtain values within the sustainability threshold in the pasture system, and only case 8 (0.62) was below in the confined system.It is observed in confined properties a greater concern in rotating crops, making winter crops to cover and protect the soil, in addition to connecting areas of forest remnants on a property with neighbouring areas, seeking to form ecological corridors than the observed in the pasture properties.

Comparison of Indicators Obtained for Pasture and Confined Systems
After surveying the properties, the indicators of the two groups of properties were compared using the Mann-Whitney U Test, with the SPSS software, according to Berbéc et al. (2018).Table 3 presents the results for the comparison with the indicators that belong to the economic balance sheet.For the indicator Productivity, there was a statistically significant difference using a 95% reliability between the systems, showing that this is a relevant factor in the composition of the final sustainability index.Both in the pasture and confined systems, greater productivity per area of food needed for production or per animal housed on the farm demonstrates efficient use of resources and less environmental impact per litter of milk produced.It is also observed in Figure 3 that all indicators of the economic balance had an average above the sustainability threshold (0.70).Economic balance Pasture Confined p-Value Productivity 0,79 (0,63-0,93) 0,94 (0,87-0,98) 0,030* Income diversification 0,76 (0,74-0,81) 0,73 (0,60-0,85) 0,091 Asset development 0,81 (0,66-0,84) 0,80 (0,71-0,91) 0,470 Degree of indebtedness 0,95 (0,84-0,98) 0,86 (0,70-0,98) 0,170 Legend: * Statistically significant value with 95% confidence.Source: Prepared by the authors (2022).

Recommendations to Improve the Sustainability of the Properties
The sustainability assessments of the properties carried, out for this work, showed some problems related to production in both groups that must be solved to improve the sustainability level.Table 6 presents these recommendations, which apply to both production systems, prepared from the indicators survey.Increase production per area with the use of inputs, seeds, and improved agricultural practices, in addition to improving the nutrition, reproduction, health, and genetics of animals; Explore alternative methods for sales and negotiate better price conditions while improving product quality.
2. Income diversification Diversify property's sources of income.

Asset development
Invest in the improvement of movable assets, in addition to the maintenance and improvement of real estate, aiming at the evolution of the enterprise market value over the years evaluated.

Degree of indebtedness
Indebtedness between 5 and 10% of total equity is seen as healthy for the business and shows that it is evolving positively.

Basic Services / Food Safety
Provide access to essential services to the residences of family members and employees in the rural property such as: water in quantity and quality, electric power, roads for production flow and input receipt; Access to health services, school transport, safety in the countryside, telephone, internet, and public garbage collection; Make an area available for food production (vegetables, fruits, tubers, and animal protein sources).

Education & training
Invest in schooling and participation in training courses for family members and effective hired labour.Provide access to the primary education network for school-aged children residing in the rural property.

Occupation & employment
Comply with labour legislation and the recommendations and determinations of the Ministry of Labour for establishments that employ people in production systems (effective and temporary hired labour).

Management
Use of management tools, cost control, accounting, access to credit and technical assistance, environmental regularization of rural properties, and the degree of organization of producers in the region.

9.Commercialization & Innovation
Use management tools to seek market information to sell its production and access to differentiated markets or institutional markets.
Environmental 10.Waste management Proper collection and disposal of garbage produced on the rural property, as well as domestic sewage; Reuse organic solid waste generated on the rural property and treat liquid and gaseous effluents.

Work safety
Use personal protective equipment (PPE), as well as have a storage structure and proper disposal of the packaging of these products.15 Balance 12. Soil fertility Adjust activity and production to the environment's capacity, ensuring stable productivity with economic return for the farmer, seeking to improve parameters related to the chemical and physical properties of the soil.

Water quality
Seek to improve surface water quality parameters in rural properties based on a qualitative analysis of aquatic ecosystems and assessment of turbidity, pH, nitrate, and thermo tolerant coliforms in surface and underground water samples.

Risk of water contamination
Observe the persistence of the active principle in the environment, its mobility the soil profile and the toxicity of the formulation, the applied volume, and the vulnerability of each plot taking account the soil granulometry, the proximity of water bodies, and the type of soil management.
15. Degraded soils Check the presence of soils in the degradation stage, measure the equivalent area and its intensity (scale and potential impact) and evaluate the behaviour tendency of the degradation process (intensification, stabilization or decrease).

Conservation practices
Implement measures for soil and water conservation in all production systems on the rural property.Seeking to implement strategies for living with drought or water stress and for the conservation and preservation of water in rural properties.

Roads
Implement bulges or transverse slopes, bumps to divert runoff, basins or infiltration boxes to capture water from road runoff when necessary, eliminating holes and erosion grooves.

Native vegetation
Preserve and / or recover remnants of native vegetation, favouring the connection of neighbouring fragments of native vegetation.

APPs
Protect, preventing the access of domestic animals to the APPs as required by the New Forestry Code, and favour the APPs around springs and bodies of water (watercourses, dams, ponds, etc.).

Legal reserve
Comply with the Legal Reserve (RL) requirement, in accordance with the New Forestry Code, promoting the maintenance and recovery of these areas.

Landscape diversification
Diversify the landscape at the scale of the property and of crops and plots with practices that help induce agrobiodiversity (intercrops, consortia, LP, LPF, PF integration, polycultures, SAFs, green fertilization, mowing in alternating lanes, presence of barriers vegetation in the plot, presence of ecological corridors in the plot, crop rotation, among others), avoiding monocultures.
Production Systems and Environmental and Socioeconomic Sustainability: Comparison Between Dairy Farms in Minas Gerais ___________________________________________________________________________

CONCLUSIONS
Among all the indicators analysed, productivity was the only one that showed a statistically significant difference for the two production systems.Greater productivity of the area used for dairy production is a decisive factor in the success of both pasture and confined enterprises.However, these latter intensify all production factors, such as area, labour, machinery, and equipment, among other resources.Thus becoming more efficient in this regard, which justifies the results found.However, there was no statistical difference in this indicator, with 95% reliability, despite the pasture system showing ISA (0.76) and the confined system ISA (0.73).
Another important point in using the ISA tool is the possibility of a quick assessment of the points that most compromise the production system on the property.In the case of the evaluation of the 12 properties in the pasture and confined systems, it was observed that the highest vulnerability is found in the environmental balance, especially concerning waste management in the properties.
The intensification of agricultural activities, without due concern for sustainability, can promote an imbalance in ecosystems, such as soil use until the point of depletion and degradation, making them unsuitable for future explorations.Thus, the development and use of tools to measure, evaluate, and adjust the socioeconomic and environmental performance of rural properties are, every day, more necessary.
In this work, it was observed that the intensification of areas already anthropized by producers, with the use of technologies to improve the production and productivity of forage and grain crops, responsible use of fertilizers and pesticides, in addition to optimizing animal nutrition, improving genetic and animal comfort, among others, provided an increase in animal productivity, labour, and area, without affecting environmental indicators, that is, with less impact per unit of product produced.
With the survey of the indicators, it was possible to present solutions to improve the socioeconomic and environmental adequacy of the properties, with actions that will mitigate the vulnerabilities and improve the result of ISA in a posteriori application.
The results obtained are specific to the searched properties.Thus, for a better understanding of other agricultural systems and sets of properties, new studies must be developed considering other variables, such as farm size and structure, location, off-farm activities, management skills, or the farmer's objectives.Thus, it will be possible to understand better the relationship between increased productivity and environmental preservation, indicating ways to help rural producers and public policy managers achieve this goal.

Figure 1 -
Figure 1 -Economic balance of surveyed properties.Source: Prepared by the authors (2022).

Figure 2 -
Figure 2 -Social balance of surveyed properties.Source: Prepared by the authors (2022).

Table 2 -
Characterization of selected properties in the pasture and confined production system in Minas Gerais.

/System Total area used for milk activity (%) Developed activities Work system Nº of Lactating Cows/Total of animals Productivity (L/ha.year)
Source: Prepared by the authors (2022).

Table 3 -
Comparison of sustainability for the indicators of the economic balance (median, minimum and maximum, p-value of the Mann-Whitney U Test)

Table 4 -
Comparison of sustainability for the indicators of the social balance (median, minimum and maximum, p-value of the Mann-Whitney U Test)

Table 5 -
Comparison of sustainability for the indicators of the environment balance (median, minimum and maximum, p-value of the Mann-Whitney U Test)