• Tidak ada hasil yang ditemukan

Kondisi Peternakan Sapi Perah Rakyat Setelah Diintervensi Oleh Proyek Pengembangan Peternakan Sapi Perah Di Ciater Dan Di Merapi.

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2017

Membagikan "Kondisi Peternakan Sapi Perah Rakyat Setelah Diintervensi Oleh Proyek Pengembangan Peternakan Sapi Perah Di Ciater Dan Di Merapi."

Copied!
49
0
0

Teks penuh

(1)

CONDITION OF SMALLHOLDER DAIRY FARMS AFTER

INTERVENED BY DAIRY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

IN CIATER AND IN MERAPI

PRIA SEMBADA

POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL

BOGOR AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY BOGOR

(2)
(3)

STATUTATORY DECLARATION

I, Pria Sembada, hereby declare that the master thesis entitled “Condition of Smallholder Dairy Farms after Intervened by Dairy Development Project in Ciater and in Merapi” is my original work under the supervision of Supervisory Committee in France (Montpellier SupAgro and CIRAD) and in Indonesia (Bogor Agricultural University) and has been submitted as an internship research report to Montpellier SupAgro and CIRAD. Any source of information originated from published and unpublished work already stated in the part of references of this thesis.

(4)

RINGKASAN

PRIA SEMBADA. Kondisi Peternakan Sapi Perah Rakyat Setelah Diintervensi oleh Proyek Pengembangan Peternakan Sapi Perah di Ciater dan di Merapi.

Dibimbing oleh BAGUS PRIYO PURWANTO, SURYAHADI, CLAIRE AUBRON, dan GUILLAUME DUTEURTRE.

Di Indonesia, terdapat dua proyek pengembangan sapi perah yang dilaksanakan atas kerjasama pihak swasta, koperasi susu dan pemerintah setempat bertujuan untuk meningkatkan produksi susu dan mata pencaharian peternak. Proyek tersebut adalah Dairy Development Project in Ciater/DDCP (Jawa Barat) dan Merapi Project (Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta). Proyek pengembangan peternakan sapi perah di Ciater sudah dimulai sejak tahun 2007 (fase 1) dan dilanjutkan pada tahun 2011 hingga 2014 (fase 2). Di Merapi, proyek dimulai pada tahun 2012 untuk membantu peternakn yang terkena dampak dari erupsi gunung Merapi pada Oktober-November 2010. Untuk mengkaji kebutuhan dan kondisi peternak rakyat, kami melakukan penelitian di masing-masing lokasi tersebut, bertujuan untuk membandingkan situasi terkini dengan situasi beberapa tahun sebelumnya (sebelum dilakukan intervensi proyek).

Penelitian ini dianalisis menggunakan ANOVA (Analisis Varian) dan dilanjutkan dengan uji Duncan untuk mengetahui perbedaan secara statistik. Pengambilan data dilakukan dari bulan April hingga September 2014. Terdapat dua fase dalam penelitian ini: fase persiapan (wawancara dengan ahli, wawancara dengan peternak dan observasi lapang) dan fase utama (wawancara dengan ahli, sensus cepat, dan survey kepada 61 peternak di Ciater dan 40 peternak di Merapi). Berdasarkan analisis, teradapat situasi yang berbeda selama aktivitas proyek. Di Ciater, produksi susu meningkat secara signifikan dan pendapatan peternak meningkat secara relatif dibandingkan dengan baseline survey yang dilakukan pada tahun 2011 (sebelum dilakukan intervensi proyek). Kami menemukan perbedaan nilai pada beberapa variable antara kelompok peternak “Demo Farm” dengan peternakan lainnya. Di Merapi, kami menemukan peningkatan secara signifikan pendapatan peternak dan peningkatan secara relative pada produksi susu dibandingkan dengan baseline survey pada tahun 2012. Kami juga menemukan bahwa terdapat perbedaan nilai antara peternak Communal dengan kelompok peternak lainnya pada beberapa variable. Proyek pengembangan peternakan sapi perah di Ciater (DDCP) dan di Merapi diduga memiliki peran yang penting dalam meningkatkan produksi susu dan pendapatan peternak

(5)

SUMMARY

PRIA SEMBADA. Condition of Smallholder Dairy Farms after Intervened by Dairy Development Project in Ciater and in Merapi. Supervised by BAGUS PRIYO PURWANTO, SURYAHADI, CLAIRE AUBRON dan GUILLAUME DUTEURTRE.

In Indonesia, there were 2 dairy development projects supported by same private company in collaboration with local government and milk cooperative aiming at improving milk production and livelihood of smallholder dairy farmers in the area. These projects are Dairy Development in Ciater Project/DDCP (West Java Province) and Merapi Project (Special Region of Yogyakarta). The dairy development project in Ciater started in 2007 (phase 1) and was carried on from 2011 to 2014 (phase 2). In the Merapi area, the project started in 2012 to help milk producers who were affected by the eruption of Mount Merapi in October-November 2010. In order to better assess the needs and the condition of smallholder dairy farmers, we conducted a study in each location, aiming at comparing the current situation with the situation that prevailed few years ago, i.e., before the intervention of a dairy development project.

This study analyzed by using ANOVA (Analyses of Variance) and Duncan significant mean test to interpret the differences statistically. The study was carried out from April to September, 2014. There was two phases in our field work: the preparation phase (interview with expert, farmers’ interviews and observations) and the main phase (interviews with expert, rapid census, and qualitative and quantitative survey to 61 farmers in Ciater and 40 farmers in Merapi). Based on the analyses, the situation has changed during the activities of the projects. In Ciater, milk production has significantly increased and income has relatively increased compared to baseline study conducted in 2011 (before the intervention of the project). We also observed the differences in some variables between group of farmer Demo Farm and other farms. In Merapi area, we observed a significant increase of farmers’ incomes and a relative increase in milk production compared with the baseline survey conducted in 2012. In addition, we observed the differences in some variables between group of farmer communal barn and other farms. The Dairy Development projects in the two sites of the study, had a role the increase of milk production and farmers’ income.

(6)

©

Copyright belongs to IPB, 2015

All Rights Reserved Law

Prohibited quoting part or all of this paper without including or mentioning the source. The quotation is only for educational purposes, research, scientific writing, preparation of reports, writing criticism, or review an issue; and citations are not detrimental to the interests of IPB.

(7)

Master Thesis

as a requirement to obtain a degree Master of Science in

Animal Production Science and Technology Study Program

CONDITION OF SMALLHOLDER DAIRY FARMS AFTER

INTERVENED BY DAIRY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

IN CIATER AND IN MERAPI

POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL

BOGOR AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY BOGOR

2015

(8)
(9)

Thesis title : Condition of Smallholder Dairy Farms after Intervened by Dairy Development Project in Ciater and in Merapi

Name : Pria Sembada

NIM : D151120011

Approved by Supervisory committee

Dr Ir Bagus Priyo Purwanto, MAgr Committee chairman

Dr Ir Suryahadi, DEA Committee member

Acknowledged by

Animal Production Science and Technology Study Program

Chairman,

Dr Ir Salundik, MSi

Dean of Postgraduate School

Dr Ir Dahrul Syah, MScAgr

(10)

FOREWORD

First of all, praise be to Allah SWT, The Lord of the universe, the Most Gracious and the Most Merciful God who has helped, guided and blessed me through all the way to complete my Master study. Peace is upon Prophet Muhammad SAW who always become a role model of my life. This study was intended as requirement to graduate in master program of IPB. Condition of smallholder dairy farms was taken as topic for this study which was entitled “Condition of Smallholder Dairy Farm after Intervened by Dairy Development Project in Ciater and in Merapi”.

Allow me to express my special appreciation and deepest gratitude to my internship supervisor, Mr. Guillaume Duteurtre who has helped and guided me in internship program. Thanks to all supervisors and jury in France and in Indonesia, Mrs. Claire Aubron, Mr. Charles-Henri Moulin Mr. Bagus P Purwanto, Mr. Suryahadi, Mrs. Danièle Montagnac, Mrs. Sylvaine Lemeilleur, Mrs. Niken Ulupi, and Mrs. Asnath for all supports, advices, corrections, and helps. To all CIRAD team especially in this project, Mr. Jean-Francois Tourrand, Mr. Gilles Saint-Martin, and Mr. Edi Basuno, I thank you very much. I also thank to all lecturer in SupAgro Montpellier and IPB, staff administration, and assistant of formation. I also would like to thank to Directorate General of Higher Education, Ministry of Education and Culture of Indonesia (DIKTI) and Government of France (BGF) who had granted me a full scholarship of Double Degree Indonesia – Prancis (DDIP) program.

Also to Danone Ecosysteme (especially Mrs. Sama Taneja), Danone Dairy Indonesia, Sahabat Cipta Foundation, Sari Husada, LPTP Foundation, Milk Cooperative KPSBU, Milk Cooperative UPP Kaliurang, Milk Cooperative Warga Mulya, and surely to all dairy farmers in Ciater and Merapi, thank you very much for your confidence, help, advice and good partnership.

I also would like to thank all my best friends in Master PARC and ELEMIDI in Montpellier SupAgro also ITP 2012 in Bogor Agricultural University, PPI-Montpellier, Prancis, thank you so much for your help and good friendship.

I am deeply indebted to my beloved family, my mom (Rohana), my dad (Bambang), my sister (Puspita), and my brother (Yudi) for your endless love, prayers, inspiration, motivation, and encouragement. To my fiancee, Annisa Oktavia Rini, thank you for your support, love and prayers. To Mamah Sulfanah, Mas Yayang, Mba Amel and Alfath, thank you for your kindness. Lastly, I would like to thank whoever who is indirectly contribute to this research and gave me possibility to complete this research. Thank you so much.

(11)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES vi

LIST OF FIGURES vi

LIST OF APPENDIXES vi

1 INTRODUCTION 1

Background Study 1

Problem Statement 2

Objective of Study 2

Benefits of Study 2

2 MATERIALS AND METHODS 2

Design of Study 2

Time and Location 3

Data Collection and Survey Design 3

Tools of Study 5

Variables of the Study 5

Data Analysis Procedure 8

3 RESULT AND DISCUSSION 8

Characteristic of Ciater Area 8

Characteristic of Farmer in Ciater Area 9

Characteristic of Dairy Farming in Ciater 10

Comparison of Farm Performances in Ciater between 2011 and 2014 14

Characteristic of Merapi Area 16

Characteristic of Farmer in Merapi Area 16

Characteristic of Dairy Farming in Merapi Area 17 Comparison of Farm Performances in Merapi between 2012 and 2014 20

4 CONCLUSION AND PERSPECTIVE 22

Conclusion 22

Perspective 22

REFERENCES 22

APPENDIXES 25

(12)

LIST OF TABLES

1 Characteristic of “Demo Farm” and“A la Carte” 5

2 Education level of farmers in Ciater area 9

3 Age level of farmers in Ciater area 10

4 Experience of farmers in dairy farming activity in Ciater Area 10 5 Average land ownership of farmers in Ciater area 10 6 Composition of dairy cattle in Demo farm and “A la carte” 11 7 Comparison of characteristic of dairy farming of farmers in Ciater (indicators of farm’s capital and farming practices) 11 8 Comparison of characteristic of dairy farming of farmers in Ciater

(indicators of farm’s performances) 12

9 Comparison of level of milk production farmers in Ciater 2014 and

Baseline survey 2011 14

10 Comparison of level of milk production of farmers Demo Farm, “A la carte” in Ciater and Baseline survey 2011 14 11 Comparison of level of income of farmers in Ciater 2014 and Baseline

survey 2011 15

12 Comparison of level of income of farmers Demo Farm, “A la carte” in

Ciater and Baseline survey 2011 15

13 Education level of farmers in Merapi area 16

14 Age level of farmer in Merapi area 17

15 Experience (years) of farmers in dairy farming activity in Merapi

area 17

16 Average land ownership of farmers in Merapi area 17 17 Composition of dairy cattle in communal barn Merapi project,

Communal Barn Government, and Individual Barn 18 18 Comparison of characteristic of dairy farming of farmers in Merapi

(performances, capital and practices) 19

19 Comparison of level of milk production and income of farmers in Merapi 2014 and farmers in merapi at Baseline Survey 2012 20 20 Comparison of level of milk production and income of farmers in Merapi

and Baseline survey 21

LIST OF FIGURES

1 Average milk price in West Java Province and concentrate feed price

from KPSBU (milk cooperative) 2010-2014 16

LIST OF APPENDIXES

1 Research Steps 25

2 Impact Pathway in Ciater and Merapi 26

3 Questionnaire 31

(13)

1

INTRODUCTION

Background Study

Livestock and its product sector play an important role of Gross Domestic Product in Indonesia. Its subsector contributed up to 41.971,8 (billion Rupiahs) in 2012 (Directorate General of Livestock and Animal Health 2013). Dairy subsector as a part of livestock sector also important to develop national economic in Indonesia. The contribution of this dairy subsector could not be separated from the role of small holder farms that have a large percentage of the total population of dairy farms in Indonesia. More than 90% of dairy farms were small-scale with traditional farming system (Astuti et al. 2010). Furthermore, Taslim (2011) and Sobahi and Setiadi (2008) mentioned that the average ownership of dairy farmers in Indonesia was only 2-3 cows each farmer. Small scale dairy farms could produce 64% of total national milk production, while the medium and large scale farms produced 28% and 8% respectively (Muzayyanah et al. 2013).

National milk production in Indonesia increased every year. In 2009, national milk production was 827,200 ton then in 2013, national milk production was 981,600 ton (Directorate General of Livestock and Animal Health 2013).It could not be separated from the role of 2 provinces, West Java and DI Yogyakarta Province as a 2nd and 4th largest milk producers in Indonesia in 2013. West Java Province produced milk as much as 255,348 ton in 2009 and 293,107 ton in 2013. Meanwhile, DI Yogyakarta Province produced 5,038 ton in 2009 then decreased in 2010 and 2011 were 4.989 ton and 3.167 ton respectively. This was because the eruption of Mount Merapi in 2010 that had huge impact to dairy farms in the area. Nevertheless, in 2013 milk production in this province was 6,901 ton. In the other words, there was an increasing amount to 118% from during 2 years (Directorate General of Livestock and Animal Health 2013).

There are two dairy development projects in Indonesia supported by private company in collaboration with milk cooperative and local government: one was in Ciater (Subang Regency, West Java Province) and the other one was in Merapi area (Sleman Regency, Special Region of Yogyakarta). The Ciater area is a dairy farming region that started recently in 2007. Merapi is an area that has long been a center for dairy farming in Yogyakarta special region, but it was seriously affected by the eruption Mount Merapi in 2010, and started to be revitalized afterward. Both of these zones are important to support national production. The general objectives of the two dairy development projects was to increase milk production and farmers’ income in the area, with the aim of increasing livelihood of smallholding dairy farmers in the area.

(14)

2

Problem Statement

Smallholder dairy farms has an important role in Indonesia. Nevertheless, milk production and livelihood of smallholder dairy farmers still low and need to be improved. According to previous study, several problems in Ciater at farm level were experience of farmers, low productivity, poor animal health condition, low quality breed of the dairy cows in general, low quality of dairy concentrates, and trading practices in the livestock market, resulted in relatively high cow prices. Meanwhile, several constrains of dairy farms in Merapi are low milk production, decreasing number of cow, and many farmers lost jobs due to the effect of disaster. According to those constrains in Ciater and Merapi, stakeholders (private company, milk cooperative, and local government) develop dairy development project with several activities for dairy farms in the two sites. The aims of the activities were expected to improve good farming practices of farmers to improve productivity and quality of milk from their farms. After that, the expected impact were to increase and improving income and welfare of farmers. This study was designed to evaluate the current condition of milk farms production and farmers income through comparing the condition of smallholder before and after intervened by the projects and comparing the group of farmer with and without project.

Objectives of Study

The aim of the study was to assess the condition of dairy farming in Ciater and Merapi areas which were intervened by dairy development project.

Benefits of Study

This study was intended to know the condition of smallholder dairy farms before and after intervened by the dairy development projects and to identify the changes during the project. Furthermore, this would help stakeholders to evaluate the activities of the project and to discuss future orientation.

2

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Design of Study

(15)

3 Primary data was obtained through interviews. However, to validate the results of the interview, especially for some of the variables used for quantitative analysis, such as the income of farmers, milk production, and the amount of training, also used secondary data obtained from the records of farmers (those who have a good recording), milk cooperative, LPTP, Farm Management, Sari Husada (for Merapi area), KPSBU, and Sahabat Cipta Foundation (for Ciater area). Data of income of farmer in Ciater area was obtained from KPSBU. It was the data monthly income (revenue-cost production). While the data of income of farmers in Merapi area was obtained from MMF Farm Management Team for group of farmers of communal barn Merapi Project. It was also monthly income (revenue-cost production). However, it has not reduced concentrate feed costs and payment of credit. This was because, until the month of August (the last month of data collection), farmers still received a subsidy from project to feed concentrates and credit payment. Besides of farmers from group of farmers Communal Barn Merapi Project, secondary data for income of farmer and milk production were collected from farmer records. Thus, the data used for the quantitative analysis was the average production and average income in the last month of data collection (Merapi area in month of July, and Ciater area in June).

Time and Location

This study was conducted in two sites of dairy farms, Ciater Area, Subang Regency (West Java Province) and Merapi Area, Sleman Regency (DI Yogyakarta Province), Indonesia. This study was carried out from April until Septembre 2014.

Data Collection and Survey Design

This study was divided into two main phases (appendix 1), as follows:

1. Preparation Phase (Observation preliminary and preparation methods of research)

(16)

4

different situation before and after the project activities/interventions undertaken. Then, questionnaire was developed (appendix 3) from these indicators.

2. Main survey Phase (Systematic survey, Interviews to farmers and stakeholders)

The collection of primary data in this phase was conducted through survey method and direct observation. This phase was carried out from June until August 2014. This phase was divided into four sub-phase, as follows:

A.Interviews with experts

Ciater

For Ciater area, the interviews with the experts conducted with private company, Sahabat Cipta Foundation, Livestock Service of Subang Regency, and milk cooperative of north Bandung (KPSBU). The aims of the interviews were to obtain the primary and secondary data about condition, progress, and evaluation of the project, baseline survey, general condition, strategy in the future and other things that important to assess the impact of the project.

Merapi

For the Merapi area, the experts that interviewed were LPTP (NGO-project implementer), private company, Milk cooperative UPP Kaliurang, Cooperative warga Mulya, Farm manager of MMF, and government of Umbulharjo.

B.Rapid Census Survey

The aim of the rapid census survey was to obtain the information about farm location precisely, number of cattle and land ownership of the farmers.

Ciater

This rapid census survey was conducted to all dairy farmers (140 dairy farmers) in Ciater. It would be useful to consider the farms that became samples of the study in Ciater.

Merapi

Rapid census in Merapi was not conducted because it has been conducted by NGO LPTP Foundation (Project Implementer). Therefore, secondary data was collected from them.

C.Quantitative and qualitative survey on large sample of farms

(17)

5 Table 1 Characteristic of “Demo Farm” and “A la Carte”

Factor “Demo Farm” “A la carte”

Grant 1. Animal barn, capacity: -4 cows

-2 calves

-Water supply to cow ad libitum system

-Meeting room facility

1. Renovation of feed bunk - Ad libitum system for

water

2. Milkcan, milking bucket 2. Milking bucket

Extension Direct Indirect

Total number of farms

11 120

Number of farms survey

11 50

Ciater

Total respondents (farmers) as sample in Ciater area was 61 farmers (11 Demo farmers and 50 farmers with “a la carte” barn). This was because the population of dairy farmers in the area is 131 farmers. Therefore, 61 farmers was already representative of the total population. Characteristic of “Demo Farm” and “a la carte” shown in Table 1.

Merapi

This quantitative and qualitative survey was conducted also in Merapi area. Number of sample in this area was 40 dairy farmers; consist of 29 farmers communal barn Merapi Project, 5 farmers from private/individual barn, 5 farmers of communal barn from government and 1 farmer of communal barn owned by group (for farmer in this group was not analyzed statistically because only one sample of farmer).

In addition to those 3 steps, some complementary secondary data was obtained from milk cooperatives of the each area, project management, livestock service, and the government.

Tools of Study

Tools that was used in this study, consist of GPS, pen, questionnaire, software SAS 9.1.3, Microsoft Office Ms. Excel, and balance (kg).

Variables of the study

The variables that measured were:

1. Farmer’s identity (age of farmer, education level of farmer, experience of farmer).

(18)

6

3. Practice (labor organization and procedure, techniques and inputs of dairy farming)

4. Farm performance (milk production, net income of farmers)

Income of farmers and milk production were important to be key indicators because the output of the project was to increase milk production and income of farmers, it necessary to see progress and situation between the years before and after the project in term of these variables. In addition, it was appropriated with baseline survey. In the baseline survey, variables that can be compared to see the difference the situation before and after the project are the income of farmers and milk production.

Some variables (especially those related to physiological animal, such as lactation period, calving interval, lactation month) were not considered because the aim of the study was only to know how the impact of the project on milk production and income of farmers. The assumption of this study that was the Intervention/activities of project were more related to the management of the farm (direct or indirect) than physiological animal.

The explanation of the variables: a. Age of Farmer

It was obtained from interview with farmer. Furthermore, the farmers were classified into 4 group of age of farmer (very young, young, old, and very old age).

b. Education Level of Farmer

It was obtained from interview with farmer. The education level were divided into 4 class (elementary school, junior high school, high school, and bachelor degree).

c. Experience of Farmer

It was obtained from the interview with farmer. Also, it was classified into 4 groups: very new farmer (1-5 years), new farmer (6-10 years), farmer with longtime experience (11-20 years), and farmer with very longtime experience (>20 years).

d. Herd Size

It was obtained from the large of herd size they had (including lactating cow, cow in dry period, calve, bull, and heifer). Score for each category of dairy cattle were: lactating cow = 1 AU (Animal Unit); cow in dry period = 1 AU; Bull = 1 AU; heifer = 0.5 AU; and calf = 0.25 AU.

e. Barn Condition

It was obtained from the interview with farmer and field observation. Score from Directorate of Livestock (1983) (appendix 4).

f. Land Ownership

It was obtained from the interview with farmers. It was classified into 3 group of land use (forage production, plantation, and cropland).

g. Training Participation

It was obtained from the interview with farmer and secondary data from Sahabat Cipta Foundation and Milk Cooperative KPSBU (for Ciater Area) and LPTP Foundation (for Merapi area). The scores for 1-5, 5-10, and >10 times of participation of training were 1, 2, and 3 respectively.

(19)

7 It was obtained from the interview with farmer and secondary data from Sahabat Cipta Foundation and Milk Cooperative KPSBU (for Ciater Area) and LPTP Foundation (for Merapi area). The scores for 1-5, 5-10, and >10 times of participation of meeting with group of farmer were 1, 2, and 3 respectively. i. Work Hours

It was obtained from how many hours the farmers work for dairy farm per day. For work hours variable, was time spent (hours/day/farmer) in a day for dairy farming activities. Farmers in Ciater had relatively similar in dairy farming activities all year. So do the farmers in Merapi Area.

j. Number of Innovation

In this study, innovation is a technology in dairy farming practice yet do not usually done by farmers in general in the area and adapted to the intervention project (project activities for dairy farmers). It was obtained from the interview with farmer and observation of the farm. In Ciater area, the innovations were using of milking machine, using of biogas, and using of feed silage. Meanwhile, in Merapi area, the innovations were using of milking machine, using of biogas, using of chopper and using of feed silage. If the farmer, using only one innovation, so that the farmer have score equal one. The scores were based on the number of innovation they had.

k. Quantity of Forage

It was obtained from the interview with farmer and field observation. Quantity of forage was the forage that given to the lactating cow per day in fresh material (kg/lactatingcow-/day). One limitation of this study was not known exactly, how many kg of forage in the form of elephant grass, natural grass and king grass. Therefore, only kg of fresh material that could be known through direct observation.

At the time of data collection and field observation (June in Ciater) and (July in Merapi), it did not found farmers that provide forage for livestock other than field grass, elephant grass and king grass. Thus, calculation of quantity forage could be done by using fresh material of forage. Because the dry matter for each forage was relatively similar. Nevertheless, If there was a straw, then the use of fresh material in the calculation of the quantity of forage would be a weakness or limitation in this study, because the dry matter grass (king grass, elephant grass, and natural grass) with straw of paddy is different.

l. Quantity of Dry Matter Feed Concentrate

It was obtained from the interview with farmer and field observation. Each feed concentrate that given to the dairy cattle was calculated the dry matter based on SNI 3148.1: 2009 (National Standardization Agency 2009) about feed concentrate.

m. Using Capital

(20)

8

n. Milk Production

It was obtained from milk production/lactating cow-/day (both primary data from interview with farmer and secondary data from milk cooperative (Ciater) and Farm Management Team. The milk production was milk production in June (Ciater) and July (Merapi). Then, the milk production/month was calculated to obtain the average milk production produced by a lactating cow/day (liter/lactating cow/day).

The use of unit “milk production/lactating cow/day” for variable milk production as adapted to the availability of data at the baseline survey. This important to minimize bias results of comparative analysis when the units being compared are the same.

o. Income of Farmer

It was obtained from interview with farmers, field observation and secondary data from milk cooperative KPSBU (Ciater) and Farm Management. The income of farmers were the income in June (Ciater) and July (Merapi). Then, the income/month was calculated to obtain the average income of farmer/day (IDR/farmer/day).

Data of farmer’s income was obtained in the one month of the study each site (June in Ciater and July in Merapi). The income was average income per day in one month (not in one year). This was due to the availability of data (both primary and secondary data). Through primary data (interview), farmers did not have a good record for revenue and milk production in their farms, especially in the last one year period. In addition, for secondary data, not all data was available each month from dairy cooperatives (Ciater) and Farm Management Team (at Merapi).

Data Analysis Procedure

Data analysis was conducted with descriptive analysis and statistic analysis. The variables which analyzed with descriptive analysis were level of education, age of farmer, experience of farmer, and land ownership. The other variables were analyzed using ANOVA (analysis of variance). In addition, Duncan least significant mean test (alpha = 0.05) was used to assess the differences between Group of “Demo Farm” and “Other Farms” (in Ciater) and Group of farmer communal barn Merapi project and “Other Farms” (in Merapi) in some variables (performances and practices) also to compare statistically the differences between performances of dairy farms before and after the interventions of the project.

3

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

Characteristic of Ciater Area

(21)

9 hectare. Average land use for crop land (paddy) and plantation are 1304 and 1000.75 hectare respectively.

Ciater area is an extension of the work area KPSBU. This location previously was a tea plantation area and only a small dairy farm activity, but since 2007 developed a dairy farm in the region as a result of development (Tawaf & Surianingrat 2010). The average milk production of Ciater area in 2009 (6.8 liters/head/day) was lower than the average national production (10 liters/head/day), but in 2011 there was an increase amount 35% from the previous year (Tawaf & Surianingrat 2010). Education level of farmers in this area was low, which is 73% farmers are primary school graduates only.

According to Tawaf and Surianingrat (2010), forage feed for dairy cattle in this area using the waste products of agriculture and paddy straw. In the rainy season, the farmers obtain forage from North Subang area for free but require transportation costs. While in the dry season, farmers take forage from other area between 20-36 miles away so that costs are more expensive. Tawaf and Surianingrat (2010) also reported that the farmers buy concentrate feed from cooperative (KPSBU). Most farmers usually used waste of soybean, waste of beer, waste of cassava and rice bran as additional feed for their cattle.

Characteristic of Farmer in Ciater Area

Characteristic of farmer in this area were classified into 4 categories: level of education, level of experience, level of age, and land ownership. Several studies mentioned that education of farmer, level of experience and level of age are important variables to increase technical farming efficiency and productivity in whole agriculture sector (Assa et al. 2012; Audu et al. 2013; Baruwa & Oke 2012). These variables also have effect on milk production and technical farming efficiency (Nganga et al. 2010; Sajjad & Khan 2010; Bardhan & Sharma 2013).

The highest level of education of farmers in Ciater area was bachelor, but the percentage of farmers that had this level of education was low (1.64%). The farmers which has higher education level was expected could share the information and knowledge about dairy farming activities to the other ones. This is due to most of farmers (68.85%) were only elementary school as their education level (Table 2). Baruwa and Oke (2012) mentioned that educated farmers could more receptive to improve farming techniques and innovation than uneducated farmers. The farmers with higher level of education was more efficient on producing milk (Fita et al. 2013).

Table 2 Education level of farmers in Ciater area

Education level Number of farmer Percentage of total farmer (%)

Bachelor 1 1.64

High school 4 6.56

Junior high school 14 22.95

(22)

10

Table 3 Age level of farmers in Ciater area

Age of farmer (years) Number of farmer Percentage of total farmer (%)

15-25 2 3.28

26-40 24 39.34

41-60 30 49.18

>60 5 8.20

Table 4 Experience of farmers in dairy farming activity in Ciater area Experience (years) Number of farmer Percentage of total farmer (%)

1 to 5 8 13.11

6 to 10 37 60.66

11 to 20 6 9.84

>21 9 14.75

Most of farmers in Ciater (49.18%) was in the old age (41-60 years) (Table 3). While there was 3.28% of farmers in Ciater in the very young age. The young age of farmers in Ciater was high relatively (39.24%). The farmers in the young age, will be more motivated and have good physic for dairy farming activities. It was similar with Sajjad and Khan (2010). The previous study reported that increasing age of farmer could be decreasing technical efficiency and milk production.

Most of dairy farmers (74%) in Ciater were new farmers (Table 4). They started dairy farm business when KPSBU and Danone join in the program to develop dairy farming in 2007. Previously, most of farmers were labor of tea plantation, labor of building construction, and farmers of paddy. In the other words, the experience of dairy farming in Ciater still need to be improved. Several studies (Ortega et al. 2007; Sajjad & Khan 2010; Fita et al. 2013) reported that the level of experience have positive impact to increase the level of milk production and technical efficiency.

Land ownership of farmer in Ciater area shown in Table 5. The farmers using their land for forage production, cropland and plantation (especially tea plantation). The average of land ownership for forage production was 1758 m2/farmer.

Table 5 Average land ownership of farmers in Ciater area Land ownership of

farmers

Forage

production Cropland Plantation Average of land

ownership (m2/farmer) 1758 ± 4383.8 708.9 ± 2250.3 5.4 ± 743.7

Characteristic of Dairy Farming in Ciater

(23)

11 Table 6 Composition of dairy cattle in Demo farm and “A la carte”

Animal characteristics of dairy farming in Ciater. Two groups of farmers in the area (group of “Demo Farm” and group of "A la carte) were compared.

Table 7 Comparison of characteristic of dairy farming of farmers in Ciater (indicators of farm’s capital and farming practices)

No Variable 3. a. Work hours Hours/farmer/day 9.04±4.12a 6.89±2.41b b. work hours ns Hours/AU/day 2.13±1.18 3.43±4.34 4. Number of

innovation

Unit

1.45±0.52a 0.62±1.32b 5. Scoring

a.Using capital ns - 27.16±20.89 20.32±12.70 b.Training

6. Quantity forage ns kg asfed/cow/day 43.64±13.62 44.17±11.28 7. Quantity dry matter

concentrate ns

kg DM/cow/day)

9.43±3.44 9.90±4.05 Note: Means in the same column with different superscript differ significantly (P<0.05); ns= not

(24)

12

Group of farmers “Demo Farm” has a higher value and significantly different than the group of farmers "A la carte" for variables of farm capital and farming practices such as the number of innovations, the allocation of working time (work hours), herd size, and barn conditions. These variables were estimated could increase the farmer’s income. However, group of farmer “a la carte” had more work hours per animal unit than group of farmer “Demo Farm”. Group of farmers “Demo Farm” provide forage and dry matter concentrate for feeding cattle was relatively fewer and not significantly different compared with the group of farmers "A la carte". Furthermore, there was no significant difference between group of farmers “Demo Farm” with group of farmer "A la carte" on using capital, training participation and meeting participation.

Dairy Development Project in Ciater (DDCP) had a role to improve the herd size, barn condition and innovation of the farmers. Those improvement might be related to the activities of the project interventions such as developing of 11 Demo Farm, access to credit, and training of dairy farming to increase the innovation (feed silage and biogas). Group of farmer “Demo Farm” received more assistance (access to credit, direct training, barn and facilities) from the project compared with group of farmer “A la carte” barn. Meanwhile, the group of farmer “A la carte”, only received the assistance such as renovation stall and indirect training so that in some variables (number of innovations, the allocation of working time (work hours), herd size, and barn conditions), farmer group of “A la carte” had lower value significantly compared with group of “Demo Farm”.

Table 8 Comparison of characteristic of dairy farming of farmers in Ciater (indicators of farm’s performances)

No Variable Unit

L/farm/month 1287.27±877.16a 700.5±411.52b 2. Milk

L/working hour 5.12±3.36 3.76±2.36

4. Total milk sold to cooperative

L/farm 1166.95±1047.41a 578.4±276.90b

5. income over feed

IDR/farmer/cow 12831±10388 18852±13350

(25)

13 Group of dairy farmers with "Demo Farm" has a total of milk production was significantly higher than the farmers “A la carte”. Milk productivity per working hours of group “Demo Farm” was relative higher than group of “A la carte”. Nevertheless, group of farmer “A la carte” was higher relatively for milk productivity per lactating cow. With those results, “a la carte” farmer was more efficient than “Demo Farm”. It was because the assistances from the project for “a la carte” farmer was fewer than “Demo Farm” but effective to increase the milk productivity.

It was because the group of farmer “A la carte” provided more dry matter concentrate and forage compared with group of farmer “Demo Farm”. Dry matter concentrate and forage have positive impact on the production of milk (Singh et al. 2010;Venkatesh & Sangeetha 2011; Pandian et al. 2013) in small size and medium size of farmers (Dayanandan 2011), in peri-urban farmers (Fita et al. 2013). In addition, it might be related to the average of land ownership of farmers for forage production (1758 m2/farmer) in Ciater. Farmers “Demo Farm” which had more herd size, would have difficulty to provide forage sufficiently for the cattle with the limitation of land they had. Milk productivity of “Demo Farm” also might be related to the level of experience of farmer, age of farmer, and education level of farmer. Generally, farmer of “Demo Farm” had more experience and older than farmer “a la carte”. So that, they would be difficult to adapt a new technic of dairy farming from intervention of project. They might be defend an old technic of dairy farming practices because they have habitually done it since a long time ago.

Meanwhile, Group of farmers “Demo Farm” has a higher relatively in term of level of monthly income over feed cost than group of farmer “a la carte”. It was because the group of farmer “Demo Farm” had larger herd size compared with group of farmer “A la carte”. Improving herd size could increase income of farmers and economic efficiency (Sajjad & Khan 2010; Nganga et al. 2010).

However, group of farmer “a la carte” was higher than group of farmer “Demo Farm” in term of income over feed cost per cow. In the other words, the productivity of “a la carte” farmer was higher than group “Demo Farm”. The farmers in Ciater was estimated has maximum capacity to take care their animal. In addition, farmers of “Demo Farm” have limitation to give forage for the cattle because the limitation of land for forage production they have. Logically, more herd size, more forage they need for cattle, but they have limitation of land, so the needs of forage for the cattle was not sufficient.

(26)

14

Comparison of Farms Performances in Ciater between 2011 and 2014

Table 9 show the result of comparison between all farmers in Ciater 2014 and baseline survey in 2011 in term of milk production. There was a difference significantly between them. Milk production of farmers in Ciater in 2014 was higher than the baseline survey 2011. Furthermore, Table 10 shows the results of a comparison of level of milk production between the two different groups of farmers in Ciater and the baseline survey which conducted by Sahabat Cipta Foundation in 2011. Level of milk production from the highest to the lowest respectively was group of farmer "a la carte", group of farmer “DemoFarm” and baseline survey. Group of dairy farmers "a la carte" have significant differences on the level of milk production compared to the baseline survey. Milk production of group farmers "a la carte" reach 12.58 liters/head/day.

Table 11 presents the results of comparison between farmers in baseline survey 2011 and farmers in Ciater in 2014 in term of farmer income. Based on the Table 11, the income of farmers in Ciater 2014 was higher (Rp41 099.50 /farmer/day) relatively compared with farmers in the baseline survey 2011 (Rp32 280 /farmer/day). Comparison of the level of income of dairy farmers in Ciater between Group of Farmers “Demo Farm”, Group of Farmers "a la carte” and a baseline survey in 2011 was presented in the Table 12. The income level of Group of “Demo Farm” was significantly different than the other group and baseline survey. The income level of Group of Farmers “Demo Farm” reached Rp63 394 /farmer day. In the other words, there was an increase of more than double in term of income level of farmers in 2011.

Table 9 Comparison of level of milk production farmers in Ciater 2014 and Milk Productivity per cow

(L/lactating cow/day) 9.86±5.28b 12.45±3.55a Source: 1 data analyzed (2014)

Note: Means in the same column with different superscript differ significantly (P<0.05); ns= not significant

Table 10 Comparison of level of milk production of farmers Demo Farm, “a la carte” in Ciater and Baseline survey 2011

Variables of research

(L/lactating cow/day) 9.86±5.28b 11.87±2.05ab 12.58±3.81a Source: 1 data analyzed (2014)

(27)

15 Table 11 Comparison of level of income of farmers in Ciater 2014 and Baseline

survey 2011 Raw income from milk cooperative

(Rp farmer/day) ns 32280±47664 41099.50±50979.36

Source: 1 data analyzed (2014)

Note: Means in the same column with different superscript differ significantly (P<0.05); ns= not significant

32280±47664b 63394±105374a 35381±27421ab Source: 1 data analyzed (2014)

Note: Means in the same column with different superscript differ significantly (P<0.05); ns= not significant

The increase of milk production and income of farmer were due to the activities of the project as mentioned previously. Furthermore, this difference was due to an increase in the herd size and to adoption of new practices. The increase of income might be related to the variation of the ratio of the price of milk compared to the price of feed (Figure 1).

Figure 1 Average milk price (IDRliter) ( ) in West Java province and concentrate feed price (IDR/kg) ( ) from KPSBU (milk cooperative) 2010-2014. This figure adapted from data of Livestock Services of West Java Province (2014) and interview with Sahabat Cipta Foundation.

(28)

16

Characteristic of Merapi Area

Merapi area is dairy farms area located in the valley of Mount Merapi. Total area and height of mount Merapi are 582.81 km2 and 2941 m above sea level. This location is geographically located in the province of DI Yogyakarta precisely in Sleman Regency. The total area in this regency is 574.82 km2 (Central Bureau of Statistic Special Region Yogyakarta Province 2013). Muzayyanah et al. (2013) mentioned that the productivity of dairy cows in the Province was the second highest in Indonesia after West Java, in amount of 3336 litter/year. Merapi area has a major role because it has a population of dairy cows as much as 92.01% of total population dairy cows in Province Yogyakarta. In 2000, total milk production in the Merapi area reached 92.02% of the total production in this province. However, in 2010 there was a big eruption of Mount Merapi which has a major impact on the dairy farm. A total of 4100 dairy cows was dead and paralyzed the activity of dairy farms in this area so that the farmers did not earn an income.

Ilham and Priyanti (2011) mentioned that the priority economic activity from most of the dairy farmers in the Merapi area only depend on the results of the dairy farm. Some others have cultivated arable land or horticultural crops, gardens and lawns. Source of dairy cattle feed was obtained by purchasing especially in the dry season for the farmers who have limited land. Furthermore, Ilham and Priyanti (2011) explained that the farmers who are members of cooperatives in Merapi area, Sleman regency has an average of 3-5 dairy cows with production level of milk amount of 9-15 liters/head/day. The percentage of dairy cows in the area was 50 percent of the total cattle in their farms.

Characteristic of Farmer in Merapi Area

Table 13 presents the education level of farmers in the Merapi Area. Based on the Table 13, it can be seen that the education level of most of the farmers (42%) in this area were only elementary school. The highest level of farmer education in this area was high school which amount to 27.5% of farmers.

Table 13 Education level of farmers in Merapi area

Education level Number of farmer Percentage of total farmer (%)

High school 11 27.5

Junior high school 9 22.5

Elementary school 17 42.5

No School 3 7.5

(29)

17 interested to try dairy business. There were also farmers that had longtime experiences in dairy farming (35% for more than 10 years’ experience) because Merapi area before the eruption 2010 was an important area to produce milk in Yogyakarta Province.

Table 14 Age level of farmer in Merapi area

Age of farmer (years) Number of farmers Percentage of total farmer (%)

15-25 2 5

26-40 22 55

41-60 11 27.5

>60 5 12.5

Table 15 Experience (years) of farmers in dairy farming activity in Merapi area Experience (years) Number of

farmers Percentage of total farmer (%)

1 to 5 24 60

6 to 10 2 5

11 to 20 7 17.5

>21 7 17.5

Table 16 shows the average of land ownership of farmer in Merapi area. The farmers using their land for forage production, cropland, managed forest and plantation. The average of land ownership of farmer was 1350 m2/farmer for forage production.

Table 16 Average land ownership of farmers in Merapi area Land ownership

of farmers

Forage

production Cropland Plantation

Managed forest Average of land

ownership (m2/farmer)

1350 ± 3559.6 25 ± 108.9 25 ± 156.1 237.5 ± 880.3

Characteristic of Dairy Farming of Farmers in Merapi

Composition of dairy cattle in Merapi shown in Table 17. According to Table 17, percentage of lactating cow in group of farmer Communal Government was highest than other group of farmer. However, the ownership of herd size in this group was the lowest. The farmers Communal Merapi Projects had the highest (4.69 heads/farmer) average ownership of herd than other group.

(30)

18

Based on the Table 18, there was a difference significantly between the farmers of communal barn Merapi Project, Communal barn from Government and Private/individual Barn in terms of the level of milk productivity, income over feed cost, number of innovations, using capital, training activities, participation meetings and barn conditions. The level of milk productivity (liters/cow/day) from highest to lowest of the three groups of farmers respectively was a private barn, communal barn Merapi Project, and communal barn from Government. The highest level of milk production reached 12.9 liters/lactating cow/day. The highest level of income over feed cost was group of farmers of communal barn Merapi Project while the lowest was group of farmers of communal barn from Government. It was because the group of farmer communal barn Merapi Project received subsidy from the project such as concentrate feed so that they did not need to pay cost of concentrate feed. Lower cost production, more income will be.

Table 17 Composition of dairy cattle in Communal Barn Merapi Project, Communal Barn Government, and Individual Barn

Animal categories

Communal Merapi

Project Communal gov Individual barn

Heads AU % Heads AU % Heads AU % other two groups. In variable using capital, training participation, and meeting participation, group of farmers of private barn has the highest value, followed by a group of farmers of communal barn Merapi Project and communal barn from Government. Communal barn Merapi Project has the highest score in term of barn condition. This was because they received the assistance of dairy farming equipment from the project.

(31)

19 units/farmer, compared to the other two groups. There was significant difference when compared with group of farmer of communal barn from the government but there was no significant difference when compared to group of farmers of communal barn Merapi Project.

Table 18 Comparison of characteristic of dairy farming of farmers in Merapi

(32)

20

Group of Farmers of Private/Individual barn provide forage as much as 38 kg/cow/day. This amount was relatively more than the group of farmers of communal barn Merapi Project, and significantly different when compared with the group of farmers of communal barn from government. Furthermore, there were no significant differences between the three groups of farmers in Merapi area in term of the provision of concentrate (dry matter). However, the highest of provision of the dry matter concentrate to the livestock was conducted by group of private/individual farmers, which was about 6.08 kg/lactating cow/day.

Group of farmer communal barn Merapi Project has a limitation in term of forage availability. It was because the limitation of land ownership and accessibility to land for forage production. So that the farmers had to compete with other farmers to get the forage. They have to take the forage in the area which far from the barn. In addition, for concentrate feed, farmers still depended on the subsidy from the project so that the provision of concentrate feed still low and need to be improved. Furthermore, it might be related to the maximum capacity of farmers to take care of the animal. In addition, socio-cultural aspect must be considered. Psychologically, farmers in Merapi area would be more interested if take care the animal not far from their house. So that, their dairy farms could be controlled easily.

Comparison of Farms Performances in Merapi between 2012 and 2014

Table 19 shows the comparison between farmers in Merapi area at baseline survey 2012 and farmers in Merapi area in 2014 in term of milk production level and the income of farmer level. Based on the table, milk production level of farmers in Merapi area in 2014 (9.37 liter/lactating cow/day) were relatively higher than the baseline survey 2012 (7.58 liter/lactating cow/day). In term of the level of income of farmers, there was a significant difference between farmers in Merapi area in 2014 and farmers in Merapi area at baseline survey 2012. The income of farmers 2014 was higher (Rp84 645.30 /farmer/day) than farmers in baseline survey 2012 (Rp25 836.40 /farmer/day).

Table 19 Comparison of level of milk production and income of farmers in Merapi 2014 and farmers in Merapi at Baseline survey 2012

Variables of research

Group of farmers Baseline survey (2012)1

(n=4)

Farmers in Merapi area in 2014 (n=39) Milk Production

(L/lactating cow/day) ns 7.58±0.54 9.37±3.20

Income (Rp/farmer/day) 25836.40±5884.08b 84645.30±33905.57a Source: 1 data analyzed (2014)

Note: Means in the same column with different superscript differ significantly (P<0.05); ns= not significant

(33)

21 liters/lactating cow/day) and significantly different compared with the other 2 groups of farmers and farmers of the baseline survey in 2012 (see Table 20). The difference of milk production might me related to the herd size, provision of dry matter concentrate, quantity forage and training participation. Those factors are important to increase milk production (Venkatesh & Sangeetha 2011; Fita et al. 2013; Pandian et al. 2013).

Meanwhile, the income level of farmers from highest to lowest respectively were Group of Merapi Project, Group of Private/Individual Barn, Group of communal barn from government, and the farmers of baseline survey. There was a significant difference between the income levels of Group of farmers Merapi Project with other groups, especially compared to the farmers of baseline survey. The level of income of Group farmers Merapi Project reached Rp102 086 day/farmer.

The differences might be related to the interventions of the project. For example, through training of dairy techniques, which was held by the Merapi Project, helped the new farmers especially to increase their knowledge in applying good farming practice. Training of dairy farming techniques is important factor to increase milk production (Fita et al. 2013). More training they have, more efficient in producing milk will be.Nevertheless, the farmers that had the low education level could not participate the training because they had difficulty to read and understand in the training.

Beneficiaries’ farmers also got the access to credit easily to improve the herd size. In addition, we also estimated the increase of income might be related to the subsidy which was received by dairy farmers in communal barn. The farmers still received the subsidy of feed concentrate and they also only paid the interest of the credit bank, but they did not yet pay the main credit. Those two subsidies were the assistance of the Merapi Project.

.

Table 20 Comparison of level of milk production and income of farmers in Merapi and Baseline survey

(L/lactating cow/day) 7.58±0.54bc 9.46±1.64b 5.33±1.60c 12.90±6.33a Income (Rp/farmer/day) 25836.40±

(34)

22

4

CONCLUSION AND PERSPECTIVE

Conclusion

There was different condition before and after Dairy Development Project, both in Ciater and Merapi area. In Ciater area, there were significant differences in term of milk production level and income of farmers. Group of farmer “Demo Farm” had higher value in some variables than group of farmer “a la carte” especially farmer income variable. It might be related to the intervention of the project in term of increasing herd size. However, it could be better if the increase of the herd size followed by the easily of dairy farming practices including accessibility and availability of feed, equipment and skills of dairy practices. Demo Farm was important and effective to increase milk production and income. Nevertheless, “a la carte” farmer was more efficient in term of milk productivity and income productivity. In Merapi area, milk production level of farmers in 2014 was higher than the farmers in baseline survey 2012. The income of dairy farmers in Merapi in 2014 was higher significantly than the farmers in the baseline survey in 2012. In addition, group of farmer communal barn Merapi Project (as beneficiaries of the project) had higher value in some variables than two other groups of farmer especially farmer income variable. For Communal barn Merapi Project, the dependency of farmers to the project was high. If they did not received the subsidy of feed concentrate, the income of farmers might be low.

Perspective

Demo Farm was effective as a model for indirect training. In addition, the increasing of herd size as an assistance for the farmers must be followed by stakeholders to facilitate farmers in term of dairy practices and to prepare the availability and accessibility for farmers in term of animal feed. Forage production might be increased through increasing land ownership, and making a feeding center in the area or outside the area. Communal barn was not a best method comparing individual barn but it was a good alternative method to revitalize Merapi as a center of dairy farms in Yogyakarta.

REFERENCES

Assa MM, Edriss A, Matchaya GC. 2012. Unexploited profit among smallholder farmers in Central Malawi : What are the sources ? Int J App Econ 9(2):83– 95.

(35)

23 Audu SI, Otitolaiye JO, Ibitoye SJ. 2013. A stochastic frontier approach to measurement of cost efficiency in small scale cassava production in Kogi State, Nigeria. Eur Scie J 9(9):114–122.

Bardhan D, Sharma ML. 2013. Technical efficiency in milk production in underdeveloped production environment of India. SpringerPlus Open Journal 2:65 http://www.springerplus.com/content/2/1/65

Baruwa OI, Oke JTO. 2012. Analysis of the technical efficiency of small-holder cocoyam farms in Ondo State, Nigeria. J Trop 30(1):36–40.

Central Bureau of Statistics DI Yogyakarta Province (Badan Pusat Statistik Propinsi DI Yogyakarta). 2013. Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta in Figures 2014 (Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta dalam Angka 2013). ISSN 0215 – 2185, Yogyakarta (ID).

Central Bureau of Statistics Subang Regency (Badan Pusat Statistik Kabupaten Subang). 2011. Ciater Subdistrict in Figures 2011 (Kecamatan Ciater dalam Angka tahun 2011), Subang (ID).

Dayanandan R. 2011. Production and marketing efficiency of dairy farms in highland of Ethiopia- An economic analysis. Int J Ent Comp Bus Sys 1(2). http://www.ijecbs.com

Directorate General of Livestock (Direktorat Jenderal Peternakan). 1983. Report of applying important factors and planning in animal husbandry sector (Laporan pertemuan pelaksanaan uji coba faktor-faktor penentu dan perencanaan tata penyuluhan subsektor peternakan). Departemen Pertanian, Jakarta (ID). Directorate General of Livestock and Animal Health (Direktorat Jenderal

Peternakan dan Kesehatan Hewan). 2013. Livestock and Animal Health Statistic (Statistik Peternakan dan Kesehatan Hewan). Direktorat Jenderal Peternakan dan Kesehatan Hewan Kementerian Pertanian Republik Indonesia, Jakarta (ID).

Fita L, Trivedi MM, Patel AM, Tassew B, Joshi CG. 2013. Determinants of technical efficiency of the dairy farmers in Ada’a District of Oromia State, Ethiopia. Iranian J App Anim Sci 3(1):59-65.

Ilham N, Priyanti A. 2011. Dampak Bencana Merapi terhadap Usaha Sapi Perah di Kabupaten Sleman (Impact of eruption Mount Merapi to dairy bussiness in Sleman Regency). Wartazoa, 21(4):161–170.

Muzayyanah M, Syahlani S, Suranindyah Y. 2013. Profiles of Smallholder Dairy Farmers Groups after Volcanic Eruption Damage in Indonesia : A Case Study of Sleman Regency , Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta. J. Int Dev and Coo., 19(4):121–129.

National Standardization Agency of Indonesia (Badan Standardisasi Nasional). 2009. National Standart of Feed Concentrate (Pakan Konsentrat Sapi Perah) SNI 3148.1:2009. Badan Standardisasi Nasional, Jakarta (ID).

Nega W, Simeon E. 2006. Technical efficiency of small-holder dairy farmers in the Central Ethiopian highlands. In Proceeding International Association of Agricultural Economists Conference, Gold Coast, Australia, pp. 12-18 Nganga SK, Kungu J, Ridder N, Herrero M. 2010. Profit efficiency among Kenyan

smallholders milk producers: A case study of Meru-South district, Kenya. African J Agric Res 5:332-337.

(36)

24

Pandian ASS, Shree JS, Raja MB, Vetrivel D. 2013. Efficiency of resources use in urban production in the state of Tamil Nadu, India. Int J Vet Sci 2(4):118-120. www.ijvets.com

Sajjad M, Khan M. 2010. Economic efficiency of milk production in District Peshawer : A stochastic frontier approach. J Agric 26(4):655–663.

Singh SP, Singh RP, Singh S, Singh BR. 2010. Milk production function for different herd size groups of buffalo in Agra district of UP. The J Rural Agr Res 10:10-13.

Sobahi R, Setiadi D. 2008. Model Industri Peternakan Sapi Perah Rakyat : Suatu Gagasan Pola 100-1000-10000 (dairy industry model of small holder dairy farmers: An idea 100-1000-10000). In Semiloka Nasional Prospek Indusitri Sapi Perah Menuju Perdagangan Bebas-2020. pp. 576–585.

Taslim. 2011. Pengaruh Faktor Produksi Susu Usahaternak Sapi Perah Melalui Pendekatan Analisis Jalur di Jawa Barat (The Impact of Factor on Dairy Production Smallholder with Path Analysis in West Java). Ilmu Ternak 1(10):52–56

Tawaf R, Surianingrat AS. 2010. The Role of Demo Farm to Develop Small Holder. (pp. 5). Bandung (ID).

Venkatesh P, Sangeetha V. 2011. Milk production and resource use efficiency in

Madurai District of Tamil Nadu: An economic analysis. J Com Mob Sust Dev

6(1):025-030.

(37)

25 APPENDIXES

Appendix 1 Research Steps

Collecting Data

Preparation Phase

Research Phase

A. Interviews with experts

B. Rapid Census

survey

(38)

26

Appendix 2 Impact Pathway in Ciater and Merapi Pathways in Ciater

Inputs Activities Outputs Outcomes Impact level 1 Impact level 2

2011 DDCP (Sahabat Cipta + Danone + KPSBU)

- invest to purchase cows and to set up Demo Farms+ a la carte

- trainings

Farmer groups model

- invest for milking bucket - milk quality test

- 1 Mobile Cooling Truck (from Danone, used for another area) - proposal of silage bussiness

- 12 Demo Farms

- 140 (ciater + 25 in Lembang) “a la carte renovation stall

- 63 purchasing cows (31 Demofarm , 27+5 Ciater

Farmers)

- 4 picturial modules

- 158 farmers trained in Ciater - 3684 farmers knowledge

transferred in Lembang

- 11 times of regular milk quality checking had been done.

- 6 mobile cooling test

- 12 Demofarm + 28 Ciater Farmers trained on feed&silage

- Debate on silage bussiness

- Research of using silage by 11 farmers

Household level

1) Good farming practices (GFP) applied

2) Physical capital of the farmers increased

3) Bussiness skilss and know how improved (in dairy)

4) Bussiness skills and know how for non dairy improved

6) “A la carte” renovation gives inspiration of the farmers to improving the barns.

7) Level of cleanliness of the barns increased

(39)

27

ASSESSMENT

Domain Criteria Indicators

Household 1. Good farming Practices

2. Physical capital

3. Dairy bussines knowledge and skill 4. Bussiness skills and know how for non dairy

5. Milk productivity increased (liter/cow; liter/land; liter per active worker 6. Milk production/house hold

7. Milk quality 8. Family income

9. Capacity of the family to adapt a changing environment 10. Family welfare

11. Farmers livelihood

1. GFP

- Number of time per day of cleaning the cattle

- Number of time per day of cleaning the barns : remove solid wastes

- Milking technique (handmade / machine)

- Calving management ??

- Avarage duration of dry period for the cows of the farm

- Number of feed the cattle/day

- Number of concentrate feed/day/cow

- Number of forage feed/day/cow

- Water consumption of dairy cattle

- Animal health (number of vaccines/year)

- Currative action for animal desease

2. Physiscal Capital

- Barns (DF/a la carte)

- Biogas

- Number of cows (lactating cow, heifer, dry period, calves, bull)

- Land ownership (ha)

3. Dairy bussiness knowledge and skill

- Knowing of making proccess of feed silage

- Practicing of feed silage process

- Making proposal of feed silage bussiness

- Number of disease known by the farmer/his wife

- Knowledge of the hoestrus

-4. Bussiness skills and know how for non dairy

- Number of non dairy economic activity in the family

(40)

28

5. Milk productivity

- Milk producticion/cow/year

- Milk production/lactation cow/day

- Milk production/availibility of land

- Milk production/active worker

6. Milk production/household

- Number of milk production (litter)/fam/day

7. Milk quality

- Number of TPC, fat, and TS

8. Economic activities of family

- Number of workers in the family

- Contribution of dairy bussiness

- Other economic activity

- Milk selling price

- Total revenue (Rp)/month

- Total cost

9. Capacity of the family to adapt a changing environment

- Know how to adapt

10.Family welfare

- Capacity to sufficiency the daily needs

- Educational level

- Healthy life

11.Farmers livelihood?

(41)

29

PATHWAYS IN MERAPI

Inputs Activities Outputs Outcomes Impact level 1 Impact level 2

2012 MERAPI PROJECT (Sari Husada+Goverment DI Yogyakarta+Government Sleman Regency+Danone Ecosysteme+Temali Foundation+BRI)

- Invest to purchase cows (with Credit scheme) and to set up Agricultural Service Center

- Trainings

Farmer groups model

- 3 SHG (Sari Husada Group) established (45 farmers) - Communal barn constructed - 180 cows for 45 farmers in

1. Good farming practices (GFP) applied

2. Physical capital of the farmers increased 3. Bussiness skilss and know

how improved (in dairy) 4. Bussiness skills and know

how for non dairy

Domain Criteria Indicators

Household 1. Good farming Practices 2. Physical capital

3. Dairy bussines knowledge and skill 4. Bussiness skills and know how for non dairy

5. Milk productivity increased (liter/cow; liter/land; liter per active worker

6. Milk production/house hold 7. Milk quality

8. Family income

9. Capacity of the family to adapt a changing environment 10.Family welfare

11.Farmers livelihood

1. GFP

- Number of cleaning the cattle and barns

- Milking treatment (traditional/machine)

- Calving management

- Dry period of cow

- Number of feed the cattle/day

- Number of concentrate feed/day/cow

- Number of forage feed/day/cow

- Water consumption of dairy cattle

- Animal health (number of vaccines/year)

- Currative action for animal desease

2. Physiscal Capital

- Barns

- Biogas

- Number of cows (lactating cow, heifer, dry period, calves, bull)

- Land ownership (ha)

3. Dairy bussiness knowledge and skill

(42)

30

- Practicing of feed silage process

- Making proposal of feed silage bussiness

4. Bussiness skills and know how for non dairy

- Number of entrepreneurs established

- Knowing better the non dairy bussiness

5. Milk productivity

- Milk producticion/cow/year

- Milk production/lactation cow/day

- Milk production/availibility of land

- Milk production/active worker

6. Milk production/household

- Number of milk production (litter)/fam/day

7. Milk quality

- Number of TPC, fat, and TS

8. Economic activities of family

- Number of workers in the family

- Contribution of dairy bussiness

- Other economic activity

- Milk selling price

- Total revenue (Rp)/month

- Total cost

9. Capacity of the family to adapt a changing environment

- Know how to adapt

10. Family welfare

- Capacity to sufficiency the daily needs

- Educational level

- Healthy life

11. Farmers livelihood?

(43)

Gambar

Table 1  Characteristic of “Demo Farm” and “A la Carte”
Table 2  Education level of farmers in Ciater area
Table 5  Average land ownership of farmers in Ciater area
Table 7  Comparison of characteristic of dairy farming of farmers in Ciater
+4

Referensi

Dokumen terkait

o.d!,smp6.brrxn-aDAPlARvAqrrq@4{psuuNrR ILEPIDoFrIR {:

Pada delay 30 detik dan juga 60 detik, rata-rata selisih waktu tamu terdeteksi yang didapatkan dengan delay 30 detik yaitu 6.05 detik dan delay 60 detik didapatkan

Di dalam pengujian yang dilakukan dengan rata-rata waktu menunggu, rata-rata waktu respon dan rata-rata waktu turnaround serta mencatat waktu CPU memproses job, waktu CPU idle

Penguasaan terhadap pengetahuan tersebut akan mempermudah seorang pemain drum dalam menginterpretasikan komposisi musik untuk drum sesuai dengan apa yang

Curve Fitting Lamanya Waktu Penyajian terhadap Kepadatan Bakteri pada Kuah Campuran dan Kuah Sisa. ƒ

Pemberhentian adalah putusnya hubungan kerja seseorang dari suatu perusahaan. Pemberhentian ini disebabkan oleh keinginan karyawan, keinginan perusahaan, kontrak kerja

Dari hasil penelitian didapatkan bahwa uji t menunjukkan bahwa arus kas operasi berpengaruh signifikan terhadap arus kas masa depan, disebabkan karena arus kas