RESUMO
ABSTRACT OBJECTIVE Our main objective was to analyse how the evolution of household assets ownership affected the Indicador Econômico Nacional (IEN – National Wealth index) and to point out the most stable assets and which lost importance more quickly. METHODS We analysed the trend of the ownership of each IEN variable and the distribution of the households’ scores. We calculated the correlation coefficients of each variable separately with the IEN score and the household income. We also evaluated how the changes of the score distribution over time affected the validity of the published reference cut-points. We used data from consortium surveys conducted every two years from 2002 to 2014 in the city of Pelotas, Brazil. RESULTS An increase in the educational level of household heads and in the ownership of all IEN assets, except radio and telephone, was observed in the study period. In general, the correlation of the assets with the IEN scores decreased over time. There was an increase in the score, with a consequent increase in the quintiles cut-points, but the distance between these cut-points had no significant variation. Thus, the reference cut-points for Pelotas, quickly became outdated. CONCLUSIONS Some assets showed greatly reduction on its importance for the indicator, and the reference cut-points became obsolete very quickly. It is essential for a standardized wealth (or asset) index with research purposes to be updated frequently, especially the cut-points of reference distribution.
RESUMO OBJETIVO Analisar como a evolução temporal da posse de bens domésticos afetou o Indicador Econômico Nacional e como essas mudanças afetaram o poder discriminatório do indicador. MÉTODOS Analisou-se a evolução temporal da posse de cada uma das variáveis do Indicador Econômico Nacional, bem como da distribuição do escore dos domicílios. Utilizamos dados de inquéritos populacionais realizados bienalmente no município de Pelotas, RS, de 2002 a 2014. Foi calculado o coeficiente de correlação de cada variável isoladamente com o escore do Indicador Econômico Nacional e com a renda familiar. Avaliamos também como a variação da distribuição do escore ao longo do tempo afetou a validade da utilização dos pontos de corte de referência publicados. RESULTADOS Houve aumento da escolaridade dos chefes das famílias e da posse de todos os bens, exceto rádio e linha telefônica no período. A correlação dos bens com o Indicador Econômico Nacional reduziu com o tempo. O escore aumentou, com consequente incremento nos pontos de corte dos quintis, mas a distância entre os pontos não teve variação importante. Assim, os pontos de corte de referência publicados para Pelotas rapidamente ficaram desatualizados. CONCLUSÕES Alguns bens perderam a capacidade discriminatória e os pontos de corte ficaram obsoletos rapidamente. É essencial um indicador de bens padronizado para uso em pesquisa, que seja atualizado com frequência, em especial os pontos de corte da distribuição de referência.
Assuntos
Humanos , Adulto , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Propriedade/economia , Propriedade/estatística & dados numéricos , Condições Sociais/economia , Condições Sociais/estatística & dados numéricos , Utensílios Domésticos/economia , Utensílios Domésticos/estatística & dados numéricos , Fatores de Tempo , Brasil , Características da Família , Escolaridade , Renda/estatística & dados numéricosRESUMO
This study included 35 farmers contracted by a broiler integrator company. Each farmer owned an average of seven poultry houses, housing six flocks per year per farmer, summing up 4.0 million broilers housed. Live performance was evaluated in flocks housed in three densities (D1 12, 12 D2 14, and D3>14 birds/m2), and included the following parameters: market age (MA), average flock weight (AFW), average daily gain (DWG), feed conversion ratio (FCR), livability (LB), production efficiency index (PEI) and carcass yield/m2 (CY). Production costs and gross margin were calculated with birds housed at two densities (11.5 D4 12.4 and 14.5 D5 15.5birds/m2), standardizing MA to 44 days. The economic evaluation included 15 farmers and 1.0 million broilers housed. The average densities obtained for D1, D2, D3, D4, and D5 were 11.80, 13.15, 15.00, 12.02, and 14.98 birds/m2, respectively. Density effect was significant on most parameters, with D1 producing the best results in AFW, DWG, FCR, LB, and PEI, whereas D2 and D3 produced different results only in FCR. Despite the reduction in animal performance, carcass yield/m2 linearly increased with density. The economic analyses showed higher production costs, despite the higher margin for D5. The greatest impact was the reduction in farmer's compensation (19.68%) per bird housed. From the farmer's perspective, the 5% increase in compensation should be enough to cover the investment required to supply the requirements of higher densities.
RESUMO
This study included 35 farmers contracted by a broiler integrator company. Each farmer owned an average of seven poultry houses, housing six flocks per year per farmer, summing up 4.0 million broilers housed. Live performance was evaluated in flocks housed in three densities (D1 12, 12 D2 14, and D3>14 birds/m2), and included the following parameters: market age (MA), average flock weight (AFW), average daily gain (DWG), feed conversion ratio (FCR), livability (LB), production efficiency index (PEI) and carcass yield/m2 (CY). Production costs and gross margin were calculated with birds housed at two densities (11.5 D4 12.4 and 14.5 D5 15.5birds/m2), standardizing MA to 44 days. The economic evaluation included 15 farmers and 1.0 million broilers housed. The average densities obtained for D1, D2, D3, D4, and D5 were 11.80, 13.15, 15.00, 12.02, and 14.98 birds/m2, respectively. Density effect was significant on most parameters, with D1 producing the best results in AFW, DWG, FCR, LB, and PEI, whereas D2 and D3 produced different results only in FCR. Despite the reduction in animal performance, carcass yield/m2 linearly increased with density. The economic analyses showed higher production costs, despite the higher margin for D5. The greatest impact was the reduction in farmer's compensation (19.68%) per bird housed. From the farmer's perspective, the 5% increase in compensation should be enough to cover the investment required to supply the requirements of higher densities.