68
5,000 10,000
15,000 20,000
25,000 30,000
Low Density Middlle Density
High Density
D ai
ly Feed
C ost
IDR
Feed for the dairy cow was provided not only by forage, but also an additional feed such kinds of concentrate and crop residue. In this study, farmers
in Lembang were using Tofu waste and bakery waste. The information regarding nutrient content on feeding composition was providing in Table 30.
Table 30. Nutrient content from feeding composition of the dairy cow Feeding Composition
Nutrient Content Price
IDR DM
CP TDN Feeding
Kg Forage
17.51 11.33
58.78 46.26
6.939,41 Concentrate
86.00 15.00
65 6.28
9.418,60 Crop Residue Tofu
Waste 10.00
22.00 60
13.61 3402,72
Crop Residue Bakery Waste
91.60 10.90
82.70 1.23
430.39 Total
19.760.74 Note : DM requirement calculated as 3 of body weight NRC.
From table 30 it could be seen that the nutrient content from feeding composition of the dairy cow. It was calculated as the daily feed cost that have to
be paid by the farmers as 19.760,74 IDR days. It was the feed with DM 17.51, CP 11.33 and TDN 58.78 from the experiment site. However, shade has
dramatically impact ether on the quantity or its quality. We stressed, whether the data from field experiment research conducted in the real agroforestry system by
adjusting levels of shade treatment on the agroforestry system. In figure 38 it could be seen that the comparisons of the daily feed cost paid by farmers in the
different plot observation.
Figure 38. The comparisons of daily feed cost paid by farmers in low, middle and high density respectively.
69
100,000 200,000
300,000 400,000
500,000 600,000
700,000 800,000
900,000 1,000,000
Low Density Middlle Density
High Density
A dd
it ional
C ost
f or
L and
R ent
IDR
Figure 39 showed the different daily feed cost in the different plot observations. It could be seen that in high density plot observation showed the
lowest daily feed cost. This condition was highly related with the nutrient content in each plot. It indicated that the quality CP and TDN were higher with the
higher levels of shade. In low-density plot the daily feed cost was 24.653 IDRDay, while in middle and high were 20.270 and 19.761 IDR Day. In contrast,
the quality of forage hardly followed by its productivity, hence the farmers paid more for the additional cost in renting land in Agroforestry system. In case, high
density plot showed the less daily feed cost by farmers, therefore farmers should paid more for the additional cost for renting land in forest. Figure 39 informed us
about the additional cost paid by farmers within different density plot.
Figure 39 The comparisons of additional cost for renting land paid by farmers in
low, middle and high density respectively. As it could be seen in figure 39 there was a different additional cost paid
by farmers in low, middle and high-density plot. It could be understood that the highest cost issued by farmers found in middle density plot, since it was the
lowest forage quality observed. Therefore, the farmers have to provide more land in order to achieve balance nutrients requirement for the dairy cattle. In contrast,
we also observed that the additional cost for renting land was found lower in high- density plot, as the impact of the daily feed cost. We calculated as 31.76 of the
70
2000 7000
12000 17000
22000 27000
Without Management Improvement
With Management Improvmemt
Da ily
F ee
d Co st
IDR
average additional cost for renting land was decreasing in the different plot observation.
Furthermore, we also stressed the nutrients requirement in order to attained economics information in Agroforestry system with and without
management improvement. In this part, we would like to discuss further about the economic analysis occurred. Moreover, we were trying to calculate values of daily
feed cost production. We were comparing the daily feed cost both in actual Agroforestry system without improvement and future scenario management
with improvement. It was found that the higher values of daily feed cost were occurring in the actual Agroforestry system. Then, we calculated the daily feed
cost with some improvement management, and showed the lower one. The information of daily feed with and without improvement could be seen in Figure
40.
Figure 40. The comparisons of daily feed cost issued by farmers without and with management improvement.
Figure above described the daily feed cost paid by the farmers. We compared the daily feed cost in with and without improvement on the real
Agroforestry system. Based on figure 41, it could be seen that the average of feed daily cost in Agroforestry system was 25.414 and 21.561 IDR for with and
without management improvement respectively. It showed that the daily feed cost was found if the farmers were doing the management improvement involving
defoliation management and additional organic fertilizer. This information might be useful in applying appropriate organization in Agroforestry system.
71 As we know that the dairy herds are kept primarily in smallholder Dairy
production, in this context, is to be seen as a component of the farming system, in which dairy and crops enterprises are associated and mutually beneficial. Since
the feed cost covered approximately 70 of totally cost production, then consideration of feed cost was highly required to determine. We divided cost into
variable and fixe cost in order to attained profit and Margin cost Table 31.
Table 31. The economic calculation of dairy farming enterprises in Lembang, West Java with and without management improvement.
No Dairy Farming Cost
Component Values IDR
Without Management
Improvement Values IDR
With Management
Improvement Total Cost
Fix Cost
1 Dairy Cow 5 dairy cowsmall
households 30.000.000
30.000.000 2
Labor 2 Person 8 HWDay 115.349.248
80.390.214 3
Housing + Depreciations 10, straight line method, no residual
value 9.625.000
9.625.000
Variable Cost
4 Feed Cost Complete Feed;
Forage, Concentrate. and Agriculture Waste
232.454.080 197.292.865
5 Maintenance Health, Artificial
Insemination Ect. 9.125.000
9.125.000 6
Land Rent Used in Forest Ha 8.766.620
5.678.572
Total Revenue
7 Major Product
8 Milk Production 15 Litterday
3500 400.312.500
400.312.500 Secondary Product
9 Selling Calf Conception Rate
70
12.000.000 12.000.000
10 Selling By Product Fertilizer
40.000.000 19.000.000
Earn
11 Gross Margin
164.245.982 199.407.197
12 Cost per Equivalent Unit
Litter 112.181
91.557 13
Cost per a Litter of Milk 3334,78
2721.70 14
Profit Yr 12.254.346.76
22.078.396.6 15
Profit Monthcow 1.021.195.56
1.839.866,38
72
Table 31 showed the economic calculation of small-scale dairy farming in Lembang, West Java. In this study, it was assumed farmers have 5 dairy cows. In
Indonesia, small-scale dairy farming have 1-10 dairy cows. Therefore, the calculation was conducted for the 5 years enterprises. The farmers were devided
into several groups; farmers who utilized forage from Agroforestry system without improvement management and farmers who utilized forage from
Agroforestry system with improvement management. The point was stressed on labors, feed cost and land rent used in forest. Therefore, it would highly impact on
unit cost milk litter and its price IDR. Moreover, it strongly changed gross margin and profit admitted by farmers.
It calculated that feed cost was found lower in Agroforestry system with improvement management for 15.16 than without improvement management.
Since in Agroforestry system was requiring labor, then it stressed labor not only for milking production but also for maintenance forage in the forest. However, we
found that as 30.30 of labor cost was higher in the real Agroforestry system than its simulation. Due this thing, was highly correlated with the additional area that
more required in the real agroforestry system. Therefore, the additional cost for renting land was higher for 35.22 in the real agroforestry system.
Highlighted, on the profit that attained by the farmers, it also obtained that profit was higher when farmers doing some improvement management. It was
indicated by the values of gross margin, which higher for 17.63. Different cost production lead to the several of cost per unit and its price. It was gained, as
18.38 of cost per unit and its price were getting higher with better improvement management. However, the earn that attained by farmers was varied since farmers
was utilizing different method.
73
CHAPTER V 5.1 Conclusions and Recommendations
1. The data were obtained in Lembang. Agroforestry system showed there was
variety of forage yield in different plot. It showed, level of shading highly influence for forage yields production. The lower forage yield was found in
middle density plot, since it higher levels of shade. It also observed the relation both shading ratio and distance in Agroforestry system, and it could
be inferred that as the higher number of shading ratio, it showed the less number of production. The nutrient quality also showed the increment trend
with the higher levels of shade. It suggested that considering of current ecological environment in measuring forage yield, since this research was
conducted when the rainfall was quite high. 2.
The research that conducted in Field experiment research showed that levels of shade, organic fertilizer and defoliation management were persuaded on
forage yield. There was significance different on the Levels of shade due to forage yield. Plant respond due to plant growth strongly correlated with the
sun availability. The levels of shade treatment has dramatically influenced on forage layer height. As 29.03 of chlorophyll content was increasing rapidly
on P. purpureum since it has been planted on 80 of levels of shade, compared with 0 shades treatment. The adding 30 Mgha of organic
fertilizer and longer time for defoliation management for 50 days, were able to improve forage quality, and remedy forage quantity. Even though the
availability of organic fertilizer in the dairy farmer could be higher or lower. 3.
Nutrient quality that observed showed there were the decreasing of DM production, due to the higher levels of shade used. The average of DM
production was depleting for 28.69, in S. Splendida, this amount was lower compared with P. purpureum 36.50. It indicated that S. Splenida has a
more tolerance due to the availability of light. The quality of forage yield measured by some indicators, such in ash content that increase as the
increment of levels of shade. As generally, in this study showed that there was a trend on increasing of crude fat content as the higher number of Levels of
shade. The less number of irradiance accepted by plants also increased protein
74
content. It also obtained that fiber content was highly significance with defoliation management. Though the biomass production was declining due to
levels of shade, the enhancement of nutrients could be gained in forage. In general nutrients quality were higher underneath shading treatments. The
adding information for NDF Neutral digestible fiber and ADF Acid digestible fiber analyses for further research was required, since it is a better
approach in detecting the digestible and indigestible in fiber content for feed analysis.
4. The role of Agroforestry on supporting forage production emphasize by
carrying capacity estimation. In this study, analyzing the carrying capacity of agroforestry resources based on total digestive nutrient TDN supply and
demand situation in Lembang, West Java. It affirmed that TDNA without management improvement supported 19.53 of totally TDND of the dairy
cattle. The economics viability due to the forage forest plantation in Agroforestry system. Highlighted on the farmers income, it also obtained that
profit was higher when farmers doing some improvement management. It was indicated by the values of gross margin, which higher for 17.63. Different
cost production lead to the several of cost per unit and its price. It was gained, as 18.38 of cost per unit and its price were getting higher with better
improvement management. Some management improvement adding organic fertilizer and longer time for defoliation management, since the research
showed better result for TDN availability. The socialization action for the local government to utilize Agroforestry system in enhancing sustainability of
dairy farming in Lembang, West Java also required.
75
CHAPTER VI. 6.1 Reference
Alavalapati J.R.R. 2005. Valuing Agroforestry System. United State. Kluwer Academic Publisher.
Andrade H.J., Brook R., Ibrahim M. 2008. Growth, production and carbon sequestration of silvopastoral systems with native timber species in the dry
low land of Costa Rica. Plant Soil: 308, 11 –22.
Aphlaho. 2006. Light signals and the growth and development of plants — a
gentle introduction. Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences Plant Biology University of Helsinki, Finland
Baruch Z, Guenni O. 2007. Irradiance and defoliation effects in three species of the forage grass Brachiaria. Tropical Grasslands 2007 Volume 41, 269
– 276
Banerjee G.C. 1998. Feeds and Principles of Animal Nutrition. Oxford and IBH Publishing Co Ltd. Calcutta.
Belsky A.J., Amudson R.G. 1992. Effects of trees on understorey vegetation and soils at forest-savana Boundaries. Chaplman Hall, London. PP 353-366
Burkill H.M. 1994. The useful plants of West Tropical Africa. Royal Botanic Gardens. Kew, UK. 636 p.
[BPN] Badan Pertanahan Nasional. 2010. Peta Dasar, Land Use Kecamatan Lembang. Badan Pertanahan Nasional Kabupaten Bandung Barat
[BPS] Badan Pusat Statistik. 2011. Penduduk Indonesia menurut Provinsi. Badan Pusat Statistik Indonesia
Callaway, R.M., 1995. Positive interactions among plants. The Botanical Review: 61 4 306-350
Cavagnaroa J.B. Trioneb S.O. 2007. Physiological, morphological and biochemical responses to shade of Trichloris crinita, a forage grass from
the arid zone of Argentina. Journal of Arid Environments 68 2007 337 –
347 Cavagnaroa, J.B., 1988. Distribution of C3 and C4 grasses at different altitudes in
a temperate arid region of Argentina. Oecologia 76, 273 –277
Chapman DF, Kenny SN, Beca D, Johnson IR. 2008. Pasture and forage crop systems for non-irrigated dairy farms in southern Australia. Physical
production and economic performance. J. Of Agricultural Systems 97; 108
–125 Cornelissen A.M.G., Van Den Berg J., Koops W.J., Grossman M. and Udo
H.M.J., 2001. Assessment of the contribution of sustainability indicators to
76
sustainable development: a novel approach using fuzzy set theory. Agriculture, Ecosystems Environment 86: 173
Cruz P., Sierra J., Wilson J.R., Dulormne, M., Tournebize R. 1999 Effects of shade on the growth and mineral nutrition of tropical grasses in
silvopastoral systems. Annals of Arid Zone, 38, 335 –361.
Denning G.L. 2001. Realising the potential of agroforestry: integrating research and development to achieve greater impact. Development in Practice,
Volume 11, Number 4, August 2001. Devandra C. 2006. Perspectives on animal production systems in Asia.
Livestock Science 106: 1
– 18 Devkota N.R., Kemp P.D., Hodgson J., Valentine I., Jaya I.K.D., 2009.
Relationship between tree canopy height and the production of pasture species in a silvopastoral system based on alder tress. Agroforestry
System. 76, 363-374
Director General Of Livestock And Animal Health. 2011. Livestock and Animal Health Statistic 2011.
Durr P.A., Rangel, J. 2000. The response of Panicum maximum to a simulated subcanopy environment. 1. Soil × shade interaction. Tropical Grasslands,
34, 110 –117.
Givnish T.J. 1998. Adaptation to sun and shade: A Whole-plant perspective. Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 15 63-92
Grings E.E., Roffler R.E., Deitelhoff D.P. 1991. Response of dairy cows in early lactation to additions of cottonseed meal in alfafaf-based diets. J. Dairy
Scie. 74: 2580-2587 Havel, R.J., 1997. Milk fat consumption and human health: recent NIH and other
American governmental recommendations. In: Welch, R.A.S., Burns, D.J.W., Davis, S.R., Popay, A.I., Prosser, C.G. Eds., Milk
Composition,Production And
Biotechnology. CAB
International, Wallingford, UK, pp. 13
–22. Heinen J.T. 1994. Emerging, diverging and converging paradigms on sustainable
development. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 1, 22
–33. Heldt H.W. 2005. Plant Biochemistry. United State. Elsevier Academic Press
Hudak A.T., Wessmand C.A., Seastedt T.R. 2003. Woody overstorey effects on soil carbon and nitrogen pools in a South African Savanna. Aust. Ecol. 28:
173-181
77 Horne P.M., Blair G.J. 1991. Forage tree legumes IV. Productivity of
leucaenagrass mixture. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 42, 1231
–1250. International Centre for Research in Agroforestry ICRAF 1998 Building on a
sound foundation: achievements, opportunities and impact, Nairobi: ICRA IUCNUNEPWWF. 1991. Caring for the earth. A strategy for sustainable libing,
Gland, Switezerland Kaur B., Gupta S.R., Singh G. 2002. Carbon storage and nitrogen cycling in
silvopastoral systems on a sodic soil in northwestern India. Agrofor. Syst. 54, 21
–29 Lascano C.E. 1991. Managing the grazing resource for animal production in
savannas of tropical America. Tropical Grasslands. V 25 PP. 66 –72.
Lambers H., Chapin, F.S., Pons T.L.1998. Plant Physiological Ecology. Springer- Verlag: New York
Ludwig, F., Kroon de, Bersende F., Prins H.H.T. 2004. The influence of savanna trees on nutrient, water and light availability and the understorey
vegetation. Plant Ecol. 170. 93-105 Mayland HF, Grunes DL. 1974. Shade-induced grass- Tetany-Prone Chemical
Changes in Agropyron desertorum and Elymus Cinerius. J. Range Manage 27: 198-201
Molua E.L. 2003. The economics of tropical agroforestry system : the case of agroforestry farms in Cameroon. Forest Policy and Economics 7 2005
199-211. McIlroy, R.J. 1977, Pengantar Budidaya Padang Rumput Tropika, Pradnya
Paramita, Jakarta. Moore G. Sanford P., Wiley. T 2006, Perennial pastures for Western Australia,
Department of Agriculture and Food Western Australia, Bulletin 4690, Perth.
Paciullo D.S.C, Castro C.R.T, Gomide C.A.M, Fernandes P.B, Rocha W.S.D, Muller M.D., Rossiello R.O.P. 2010. Soil bulk density and biomass
partitioning of Brachiaria Decumbens in a silvopastoral system. Sci. Agric. Piracicaba, Braz., V: 67, N.5, P.598-603.
Pacuillo D.S.C, Castro C.R.T, Gomide C.A.M, Mauricio R.M, Pires M.F.A, Muller M.D., Xavier D.F. 2011. Performance of dairy heifers in
silvopastoral system. Livestock Science 141. 166-172 Pagiola S., gostini P., obbi J., e Haan ., Ibrahim M., Murgueitio .,
am rez ., osales M., u z J.P., 2004. Paying for biodiversity conservation services in agricultural landscapes. Environment Department
78
Paper No. 96, Environmental Economics Series. World Bank, Washington, DC.
Penning de Vries, F.W.T., van Laar, H.H., 1982. Simulation of Plant Growth and Crop Production. Pudoc, Wageningen, pp. 27
–42 Paez A., Lopez V.P.J.C. 2000. Growth and physiological responses of tomato
plants cv. Rio Grande during May to July season. Effect of shading. Rev. Fac. Agron. LUZ 17:173-184.
Pezo ., Ibrahim M. 1999. Sistema silvopastoriles. Modulo de nsen˜anza. No. 2. CATIE, Turrialba.
Pereira H.C. 1989. Policy and practice in the management of Tropical Watersheds. Westview Pres
Power I.L., Thorrold B.S., Balks M.S. 2003. Soil properties and nitrogen availability in silvopastoral plantings in Acacia melanoxilon in North
Island, New Zealand. Agrofor. Syst. 57, 225 –237.
Rae A.N. 1994. Agriculture management economics : Activity analysis and decision making. CAB International. Oxford, p 358
Renvoize S.A., Clayton W.D. and Kabuye C.H.S. 1998. Morfología, taxonomía y distribución natural de Brachiaria Trin Griseb. In: Miles, J.W., Maass,
B.L. and Do Valle, C.B. eds Brachiaria: Biología, Agronomía y Mejoramiento. pp. 1
–17. CIAT: Cali, Colombia. oig F. ., 1980. Flora de la eserva colo´ gica de N˜ acun˜ a´ n. uaderno
Te´cnico 3-80. Inst. Argentino Invest. Zonas Aridas, Mendoza, Argentina. SAI Platform 2009 . Principle and Practices for Sustainable Dairy Farming.
Soto-pinto, L., nzueto, M., Mendo a, J., Ferrer, .J., Jong, B., 2010. arbon sequestration through a
groforestry in indigeneous communities of hiapas, M xico. grofor. Syst. 1, 8-39.
Schauff D.J. and Clark J.H. 1992. Effects of feeding diets containing calcium salts of long-chain fatty acid to lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 75; 2990-
3002 Schoeneberger M.M., 2009. Agroforestry: working trees for sequestering carbon
on agricultural lands. Agrofor. Syst. 75, 27 –37.
Shearman R. 1990. The meaning and ethics of sustainability. Environmental Management 14: 1-8.
Sirait J. 2005. Pertumbuhan dan Serapan Nitrogen Rumput pada Naungan dan Pemupukan yang Berbeda. Tesis. Program Pascasarjana. Institut Pertanian
Bogor. Bogor
79 Skerman P.J. and Riveros F. 1990. Tropical grasses. FAO Plant Production and
Protection Smith M.A. and Whiteman P.C. 1983. Evaluation of tropical grasses in increasing
shade under coconut canopies. Expl. Agric. 19: 153-161 Staples C.R., Burke J.M., and Tackher W.W. 1998. Influence of supplemental fat
on reproductive tissues and performance of lactating cows. J. Dairy Sci. 81: 856-871
Sulastri, E. K.L. Maharjan. 2005. Milk marketing and consumption pattern in Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta, Indonesia. J. International Development and
Cooperation. 12.1 : 89-106 Thapa G.B., Paudel G.S. 1999. Evaluation of the livestock carrying capacity of
land resources in the Hills of Nepal based on total digestive nutrient analysis. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 78 2000 223-235
Thelen K. D., Fronning B. E., Kravchenko S. A., Min D.H., Robertson G. P. 2010. Integrating livestock manure with a corn-soybean bioenergy
cropping system improves short-term carbon sequestration rates and net global warming potential. Biomass and Bioenergy. 347: 960
–966. Tilman AD, Hartadi H, Reksohadiprodjo S, Prawirokusumo S, Lebdosoekojo S.
1989. Ilmu Makanan Ternak Dasar. Yogyakarta : Gajah Mada University Press.
Treydte A.C., Heitkonig I.M.A, Prins H.H.T., Ludwig F. 2007. Trees improve grass quality for herbivores in African Savana. Prespective in Plant
Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 8 2007 197-2005 Van Calker K.J., Berentsen P.B.M., Giesen G.W.J., Huirne R.B.M., 2005.
Identifying and ranking attributes that determine sustainability in Dutch dairy farming. Agriculture and Human Values 22, 53
–63. Van Calker K.J., Berentsen P.B.M., De Boer I.M.J., Giesen G.W.J., Huirne
R.B.M., 2004. An LP-model to analyse economic and ecological sustainability on Dutch dairy farms: model presentation and application for
experimental farm bde MarkeQ. Agric. Syst. 82 2, 139 – 160.
Williamson G, Payne WJA. 1993. Pengantar Peternakan di Daerah Tropis. Yogyakarta Gajahmada University Press
Wilson J.R., Minson D.J. 1980. Prospects for improving the digestibility and intake of tropical grasses. Trop. Grassl. 14: 253-9.
Wilson J.R., 1982. Environmental and nutritional factors affecting herbage quality. In: Hacker, J.B. Ed., Nutritional limits to Animal Production
from Pasture. CAB International, pp. 111 –131.
