Kondisi Peternakan Sapi Perah Rakyat Setelah Diintervensi Oleh Proyek Pengembangan Peternakan Sapi Perah Di Ciater Dan Di Merapi.
CONDITION OF SMALLHOLDER DAIRY FARMS AFTER
INTERVENED BY DAIRY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
IN CIATER AND IN MERAPI
PRIA SEMBADA
POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
BOGOR AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY
BOGOR
2015
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published and unpublished work already stated in the part of references of this thesis.
Bogor, January 2015
Pria Sembada
NIM D151120011
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
Kata kunci: kondisi, peternak sapi perah rakyat, proyek pengembangan peternakan,
Ciater, Merapi
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 OctoberNovember 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.
Keywords: condition, smallholder dairy farms, dairy development project, Ciater,
Merapi
© 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.
Prohibited announcing and reproducing part or all papers in any form without
permission of IPB.
CONDITION OF SMALLHOLDER DAIRY FARMS AFTER
INTERVENED BY DAIRY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
IN CIATER AND IN MERAPI
PRIA SEMBADA
Master Thesis
as a requirement to obtain a degree
Master of Science in
Animal Production Science and Technology Study Program
POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
BOGOR AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY
BOGOR
2015
External Examiner:
Dr Ir Asnath M. Fuah, MS
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,
Dean of Postgraduate School
Dr Ir Salundik, MSi
Dr Ir Dahrul Syah, MScAgr
Date of Examination: 29 December 2014
Date of Graduation:
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, PPIMontpellier, 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.
Bogor, January 2015
Pria Sembada
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
vi
LIST OF APPENDIXES
vi
1 INTRODUCTION
Background Study
Problem Statement
Objective of Study
Benefits of Study
1
1
2
2
2
2 MATERIALS AND METHODS
Design of Study
Time and Location
Data Collection and Survey Design
Tools of Study
Variables of the Study
Data Analysis Procedure
2
2
3
3
5
5
8
3 RESULT AND DISCUSSION
Characteristic of Ciater Area
Characteristic of Farmer in Ciater Area
Characteristic of Dairy Farming in Ciater
Comparison of Farm Performances in Ciater between 2011 and 2014
Characteristic of Merapi Area
Characteristic of Farmer in Merapi Area
Characteristic of Dairy Farming in Merapi Area
Comparison of Farm Performances in Merapi between 2012 and 2014
8
8
9
10
14
16
16
17
20
4 CONCLUSION AND PERSPECTIVE
Conclusion
Perspective
22
22
22
REFERENCES
22
APPENDIXES
25
BIOGRAPHY
37
LIST OF TABLES
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Characteristic of “Demo Farm” and “A la Carte”
5
Education level of farmers in Ciater area
9
Age level of farmers in Ciater area
10
Experience of farmers in dairy farming activity in Ciater Area
10
Average land ownership of farmers in Ciater area
10
Composition of dairy cattle in Demo farm and “A la carte”
11
Comparison of characteristic of dairy farming of farmers in Ciater
(indicators of farm’s capital and farming practices)
11
Comparison of characteristic of dairy farming of farmers in Ciater
(indicators of farm’s performances)
12
Comparison of level of milk production farmers in Ciater 2014 and
Baseline survey 2011
14
Comparison of level of milk production of farmers Demo Farm, “A la
carte” in Ciater and Baseline survey 2011
14
Comparison of level of income of farmers in Ciater 2014 and Baseline
survey 2011
15
Comparison of level of income of farmers Demo Farm, “A la carte” in
Ciater and Baseline survey 2011
15
Education level of farmers in Merapi area
16
Age level of farmer in Merapi area
17
Experience (years) of farmers in dairy farming activity in Merapi
area
17
Average land ownership of farmers in Merapi area
17
Composition of dairy cattle in communal barn Merapi project,
Communal Barn Government, and Individual Barn
18
Comparison of characteristic of dairy farming of farmers in Merapi
(performances, capital and practices)
19
Comparison of level of milk production and income of farmers in Merapi
2014 and farmers in merapi at Baseline Survey 2012
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
2
3
4
Research Steps
Impact Pathway in Ciater and Merapi
Questionnaire
Scoring of Barn Condition (Directorate General of Livestock 1983)
25
26
31
36
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.
Based on the aims of the dairy development project, in both Ciater and Merapi
areas, it is interesting to understand the condition smallholder dairy farms before
project and after intervened by project in term of practices and performances (milk
production and farmers income). In addition, it is interesting to compare the
condition of those farms with and without project interventions.
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
This study was conducted using primary and secondary data. Primary data
was collected by using surveys method and direct observation. Survey method was
carried out by taking the information or data from sample of a population to
represent the entire population. The type of study was descriptive and comparative
study. Secondary data was obtained from the literature, milk cooperative, project
implementer, project management and local government such as milk production
per farmer in Ciater and in Merapi, characteristic of area, and farmer income.
Meanwhile, baseline survey conducted by Sahabat Cipta Foundation in 2010
(Ciater) and Temali Foundation in 2011 (Merapi area).
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)
Before determining the indicators of the impact study, preliminary survey was
conducted to know the situation and “complete picture” of the dairy development
project in Ciater and Merapi area. This phase was conducted from 13th April to 20th
of May 2014. It was started by a visit to the study site in Ciater. The visit was
conducted to determine and understand the general situation at the sites, from house
hold level, community level and value chain. The activities of the visit in Ciater and
in Merapi: visited to beneficiaries dairy farmers, did the field observation and short
interview, visited of milk cooperative, collected secondary data of the project (in
both Ciater and Merapi area), interview with experts, and visited to communal barn.
Results obtained after conducting a preliminary survey was identification of
impact pathways (inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes and impact) (appendix 2).
Based on the identification of inputs, activities and outputs, some important
variables considered to be indicators that were measured in this study. This was
because these indicators could answer the impact of the projects seen from the
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
The survey was conducted with a significant or representative samples to
obtain more information including qualitative and quantitative data. The purposive
sampling was used in the study both in Ciater area and Merapi area. In other words,
the farms that became samples were only the dairy farmers that have a number of
lactating cows at least 1 head. It was intended to facilitate quantitative analysis and
determine the milk production of the farm and to know the income derived from
the dairy farm (mainly from the sale of milk as the main income of dairy farmers).
5
Table 1 Characteristic of “Demo Farm” and “A la Carte”
Factor
“Demo Farm”
“A la carte”
Grant
1. Animal barn, capacity:
1. Renovation of feed bunk
- 4 cows
- Ad libitum system for
- 2 calves
water
- Water supply to cow ad
libitum system
- Meeting room facility
2. Milkcan, milking bucket 2. Milking bucket
Extension
Direct
Indirect
Total number of
11
120
farms
Number of farms
11
50
survey
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).
2. Capital (ownership of herd, barn and facilities, land ownership, social
activities)
6
3.
4.
Practice (labor organization and procedure, techniques and inputs of dairy
farming)
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.
h. Meeting Group of Farmer
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
It was obtained from the interview with farmer and field observation. The
use of capital consists of 3 categories, capital of the livestock, capital for the
barn, and capital for equipment of dairy farming. The judging expert gave the
score for each categories. These categories related to the motivation of the
farmers for their dairy farming activity and business. For each categories, there
were 5 categories = own capital, credit schemes from banks, credit from 3rd
hand, assistance from others and heritage. Scores from expert judgment for
each categories were 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1 respectively.
8
n.
o.
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.
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
Characteristic of Ciater area is high plateau in average 807 meters above sea
level (Central Bureau of Statistics of Subang Regency 2011) with fit temperatures
that could supporting milk production of dairy cows. Total area in Ciater is 4.718
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
Bachelor
High school
Junior high school
Elementary school
Number of farmer
1
4
14
42
Percentage of total farmer (%)
1.64
6.56
22.95
68.85
10
Table 3 Age level of farmers in Ciater area
Percentage of total farmer
Age of farmer (years)
Number of 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
Forage
Cropland
Plantation
farmers
production
Average of land
ownership (m2/farmer)
1758 ± 4383.8
708.9 ± 2250.3
5.4 ± 743.7
Characteristic of Dairy Farming in Ciater
The composition of dairy cattle in Ciater shown in Table 6. According to
the table, percentage of lactating cow in Demo farm was higher (69.79%) than in
11
Table 6 Composition of dairy cattle in Demo farm and “A la carte”
Demo Farm
“A la carte”
Animal
Animal Percentage
Animal Percentage
categories
Heads
Heads
unit
(%)
unit
(%)
Calf
- Male
3
6.75
1.28
28
7
4.41
- Female
10
8
4.26
27
6.75
4.25
Heifer
11
5.5
9.36
62
31
19.53
Lactating cow
41
41
69.79
94
94
59.21
Cow in dry period
8
8
13.62
17
17
10.71
Bull
1
1
1.54
3
3
1.89
Total
74
58.75
100
231
158.75
100
Average
ownership per
6.73
5.34
4.62
3.18
farmer
“a la carte” (59.21%). Average ownership in Demo Farm was 6.7 heads/farmer.
This number was also higher than “A la carte” farmer which only had 4.62
heads/farmer.
The following Table 7 and Table 8 describes the comparison of the
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
No
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Comparison of characteristic of dairy farming of farmers in Ciater
(indicators of farm’s capital and farming practices)
Group of farmers
Variable
Demo Farm Farmers “A la
Unit
(n=11)
carte” (n=50)
Herd size
AU
5.34±3.32a
3.18±1.86b
Number of
Heads
3.73±3.04a
1.88±0.94b
lactating cow
a. Work hours
Hours/farmer/day
9.04±4.12a
6.89±2.41b
ns
b. work hours
Hours/AU/day
2.13±1.18
3.43±4.34
Number of
Unit
1.45±0.52a
0.62±1.32b
innovation
Scoring
a.Using capital ns
27.16±20.89
20.32±12.70
b.Training
2.82±0.75
2.46±0.50
participation ns
c.Meeting
3.18±0.75
3.24±0.80
participation ns
d.Barn condition
100a
70.10±1.60b
Quantity forage ns
kg asfed/cow/day 43.64±13.62
44.17±11.28
Quantity dry matter kg DM/cow/day)
9.43±3.44
9.90±4.05
concentrate ns
Note: Means in the same column with different superscript differ significantly (P
INTERVENED BY DAIRY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
IN CIATER AND IN MERAPI
PRIA SEMBADA
POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
BOGOR AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY
BOGOR
2015
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.
Bogor, January 2015
Pria Sembada
NIM D151120011
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
Kata kunci: kondisi, peternak sapi perah rakyat, proyek pengembangan peternakan,
Ciater, Merapi
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 OctoberNovember 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.
Keywords: condition, smallholder dairy farms, dairy development project, Ciater,
Merapi
© 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.
Prohibited announcing and reproducing part or all papers in any form without
permission of IPB.
CONDITION OF SMALLHOLDER DAIRY FARMS AFTER
INTERVENED BY DAIRY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
IN CIATER AND IN MERAPI
PRIA SEMBADA
Master Thesis
as a requirement to obtain a degree
Master of Science in
Animal Production Science and Technology Study Program
POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
BOGOR AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY
BOGOR
2015
External Examiner:
Dr Ir Asnath M. Fuah, MS
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,
Dean of Postgraduate School
Dr Ir Salundik, MSi
Dr Ir Dahrul Syah, MScAgr
Date of Examination: 29 December 2014
Date of Graduation:
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, PPIMontpellier, 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.
Bogor, January 2015
Pria Sembada
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
vi
LIST OF APPENDIXES
vi
1 INTRODUCTION
Background Study
Problem Statement
Objective of Study
Benefits of Study
1
1
2
2
2
2 MATERIALS AND METHODS
Design of Study
Time and Location
Data Collection and Survey Design
Tools of Study
Variables of the Study
Data Analysis Procedure
2
2
3
3
5
5
8
3 RESULT AND DISCUSSION
Characteristic of Ciater Area
Characteristic of Farmer in Ciater Area
Characteristic of Dairy Farming in Ciater
Comparison of Farm Performances in Ciater between 2011 and 2014
Characteristic of Merapi Area
Characteristic of Farmer in Merapi Area
Characteristic of Dairy Farming in Merapi Area
Comparison of Farm Performances in Merapi between 2012 and 2014
8
8
9
10
14
16
16
17
20
4 CONCLUSION AND PERSPECTIVE
Conclusion
Perspective
22
22
22
REFERENCES
22
APPENDIXES
25
BIOGRAPHY
37
LIST OF TABLES
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Characteristic of “Demo Farm” and “A la Carte”
5
Education level of farmers in Ciater area
9
Age level of farmers in Ciater area
10
Experience of farmers in dairy farming activity in Ciater Area
10
Average land ownership of farmers in Ciater area
10
Composition of dairy cattle in Demo farm and “A la carte”
11
Comparison of characteristic of dairy farming of farmers in Ciater
(indicators of farm’s capital and farming practices)
11
Comparison of characteristic of dairy farming of farmers in Ciater
(indicators of farm’s performances)
12
Comparison of level of milk production farmers in Ciater 2014 and
Baseline survey 2011
14
Comparison of level of milk production of farmers Demo Farm, “A la
carte” in Ciater and Baseline survey 2011
14
Comparison of level of income of farmers in Ciater 2014 and Baseline
survey 2011
15
Comparison of level of income of farmers Demo Farm, “A la carte” in
Ciater and Baseline survey 2011
15
Education level of farmers in Merapi area
16
Age level of farmer in Merapi area
17
Experience (years) of farmers in dairy farming activity in Merapi
area
17
Average land ownership of farmers in Merapi area
17
Composition of dairy cattle in communal barn Merapi project,
Communal Barn Government, and Individual Barn
18
Comparison of characteristic of dairy farming of farmers in Merapi
(performances, capital and practices)
19
Comparison of level of milk production and income of farmers in Merapi
2014 and farmers in merapi at Baseline Survey 2012
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
2
3
4
Research Steps
Impact Pathway in Ciater and Merapi
Questionnaire
Scoring of Barn Condition (Directorate General of Livestock 1983)
25
26
31
36
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.
Based on the aims of the dairy development project, in both Ciater and Merapi
areas, it is interesting to understand the condition smallholder dairy farms before
project and after intervened by project in term of practices and performances (milk
production and farmers income). In addition, it is interesting to compare the
condition of those farms with and without project interventions.
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
This study was conducted using primary and secondary data. Primary data
was collected by using surveys method and direct observation. Survey method was
carried out by taking the information or data from sample of a population to
represent the entire population. The type of study was descriptive and comparative
study. Secondary data was obtained from the literature, milk cooperative, project
implementer, project management and local government such as milk production
per farmer in Ciater and in Merapi, characteristic of area, and farmer income.
Meanwhile, baseline survey conducted by Sahabat Cipta Foundation in 2010
(Ciater) and Temali Foundation in 2011 (Merapi area).
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)
Before determining the indicators of the impact study, preliminary survey was
conducted to know the situation and “complete picture” of the dairy development
project in Ciater and Merapi area. This phase was conducted from 13th April to 20th
of May 2014. It was started by a visit to the study site in Ciater. The visit was
conducted to determine and understand the general situation at the sites, from house
hold level, community level and value chain. The activities of the visit in Ciater and
in Merapi: visited to beneficiaries dairy farmers, did the field observation and short
interview, visited of milk cooperative, collected secondary data of the project (in
both Ciater and Merapi area), interview with experts, and visited to communal barn.
Results obtained after conducting a preliminary survey was identification of
impact pathways (inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes and impact) (appendix 2).
Based on the identification of inputs, activities and outputs, some important
variables considered to be indicators that were measured in this study. This was
because these indicators could answer the impact of the projects seen from the
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
The survey was conducted with a significant or representative samples to
obtain more information including qualitative and quantitative data. The purposive
sampling was used in the study both in Ciater area and Merapi area. In other words,
the farms that became samples were only the dairy farmers that have a number of
lactating cows at least 1 head. It was intended to facilitate quantitative analysis and
determine the milk production of the farm and to know the income derived from
the dairy farm (mainly from the sale of milk as the main income of dairy farmers).
5
Table 1 Characteristic of “Demo Farm” and “A la Carte”
Factor
“Demo Farm”
“A la carte”
Grant
1. Animal barn, capacity:
1. Renovation of feed bunk
- 4 cows
- Ad libitum system for
- 2 calves
water
- Water supply to cow ad
libitum system
- Meeting room facility
2. Milkcan, milking bucket 2. Milking bucket
Extension
Direct
Indirect
Total number of
11
120
farms
Number of farms
11
50
survey
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).
2. Capital (ownership of herd, barn and facilities, land ownership, social
activities)
6
3.
4.
Practice (labor organization and procedure, techniques and inputs of dairy
farming)
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.
h. Meeting Group of Farmer
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
It was obtained from the interview with farmer and field observation. The
use of capital consists of 3 categories, capital of the livestock, capital for the
barn, and capital for equipment of dairy farming. The judging expert gave the
score for each categories. These categories related to the motivation of the
farmers for their dairy farming activity and business. For each categories, there
were 5 categories = own capital, credit schemes from banks, credit from 3rd
hand, assistance from others and heritage. Scores from expert judgment for
each categories were 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1 respectively.
8
n.
o.
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.
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
Characteristic of Ciater area is high plateau in average 807 meters above sea
level (Central Bureau of Statistics of Subang Regency 2011) with fit temperatures
that could supporting milk production of dairy cows. Total area in Ciater is 4.718
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
Bachelor
High school
Junior high school
Elementary school
Number of farmer
1
4
14
42
Percentage of total farmer (%)
1.64
6.56
22.95
68.85
10
Table 3 Age level of farmers in Ciater area
Percentage of total farmer
Age of farmer (years)
Number of 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
Forage
Cropland
Plantation
farmers
production
Average of land
ownership (m2/farmer)
1758 ± 4383.8
708.9 ± 2250.3
5.4 ± 743.7
Characteristic of Dairy Farming in Ciater
The composition of dairy cattle in Ciater shown in Table 6. According to
the table, percentage of lactating cow in Demo farm was higher (69.79%) than in
11
Table 6 Composition of dairy cattle in Demo farm and “A la carte”
Demo Farm
“A la carte”
Animal
Animal Percentage
Animal Percentage
categories
Heads
Heads
unit
(%)
unit
(%)
Calf
- Male
3
6.75
1.28
28
7
4.41
- Female
10
8
4.26
27
6.75
4.25
Heifer
11
5.5
9.36
62
31
19.53
Lactating cow
41
41
69.79
94
94
59.21
Cow in dry period
8
8
13.62
17
17
10.71
Bull
1
1
1.54
3
3
1.89
Total
74
58.75
100
231
158.75
100
Average
ownership per
6.73
5.34
4.62
3.18
farmer
“a la carte” (59.21%). Average ownership in Demo Farm was 6.7 heads/farmer.
This number was also higher than “A la carte” farmer which only had 4.62
heads/farmer.
The following Table 7 and Table 8 describes the comparison of the
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
No
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Comparison of characteristic of dairy farming of farmers in Ciater
(indicators of farm’s capital and farming practices)
Group of farmers
Variable
Demo Farm Farmers “A la
Unit
(n=11)
carte” (n=50)
Herd size
AU
5.34±3.32a
3.18±1.86b
Number of
Heads
3.73±3.04a
1.88±0.94b
lactating cow
a. Work hours
Hours/farmer/day
9.04±4.12a
6.89±2.41b
ns
b. work hours
Hours/AU/day
2.13±1.18
3.43±4.34
Number of
Unit
1.45±0.52a
0.62±1.32b
innovation
Scoring
a.Using capital ns
27.16±20.89
20.32±12.70
b.Training
2.82±0.75
2.46±0.50
participation ns
c.Meeting
3.18±0.75
3.24±0.80
participation ns
d.Barn condition
100a
70.10±1.60b
Quantity forage ns
kg asfed/cow/day 43.64±13.62
44.17±11.28
Quantity dry matter kg DM/cow/day)
9.43±3.44
9.90±4.05
concentrate ns
Note: Means in the same column with different superscript differ significantly (P