Study of Development Planning and Development Agrosilvopastoral for the Improvement of Village Economy in West Sumatra: (Case of Sumanik Village in Tanah Datar District)

I NTERNATIONAL J OURNAL OF A GRICULTURAL S CIENCES V OL .2 N O .1 (2018) 10 1 –25

1. Introduction

fertile soil conditions and land use for agriculture which reaches 60% of the village area, (3) social

The development of agriculture is a process of condition of the community Which as a major has social change, its application is not only aimed to

been involved in agriculture, and (4) the historical improve the status and welfare of the farmers. But

value of the village as one of the oldest villages in also intended to develop the potential of human

Tanah Datar.

resources both economically, socially, politically, This study aims to: (1) Analyze the assessment culturally, environmentally or through improve-

of the existing condition of farming communities in ments and changes (Iqbal and Sudaryanto, 2008).

Sumanik village; (2) Analyzing perception, Currently the problems that occur in agricultural

motivation, and readiness of farmer community of development are; 1) Decreasing the quality of

Sumanik Village to agrosilvopastura, and its pre- agricultural land due to the high use of chemical

ferences in choosing agricultural system; (3) fertilizers, 2) the lack of skilled people in doing the

Analyze the impact of Agrosilvopastoral activities work in the agricultural sector, 3) the low level of

on the economics of farmers of Sumanik village; (4) rural community education.

Elaborating the most appropriate Agrosilvopastoral One of the opportunities to increase the benefits

model applied in Sumanik Village while main- of agriculture and forestry sustainably can be done

taining the ecological, social and economic by establishing an Agrosilvopastoral system, where

sustainability.

the system is a land use that combines woody

plants with non-timber plants such as food crops,

pastures and livestock, on the same land to form

2. Research Methods

Ecological and economic interactions between

woody plants and other components. In this system,

Location and Time

the production component of each sector will be optimally utilized because the waste production of

This research will be conducted in Sumanik each sector will be useful for the production of

Village, Salimpaung Subdistrict, Tanah Datar other sectors. Another advantage, with the

Regency. The research location will be focused existence of this system, the completeness of the

on the farmers' private farmland in Sumanik ecosystem area will be maintained, because the

Village. Field data collection will be conducted for failure of one component will be covered by other

2 years, ie January 2013 to December 2015. components. On the economic front, this system is

also very profitable because it minimizes the

Data Collection Method

expenditure of fixed costs and also makes the Primary data collection is done in 4 ways,

potential source of income more diverse and namely: 1. Survey, directly using questionnaire.

higher. The result of Rauf's (2004) study of the The value used in the questionnaire refers to the

potential of carbon biomass on Agrosilvopastoral result of the Likert Scale, which changes the initial farming system in the buffer zone of Guniung

value from range 1 to 5, ranging from 1 to 7 Leuser National Park is about 16.4 times greater

(Avenzora 2008). 2. Observation, 3. In-depth than the biomass and carbon stand potential found

interview 4. Documentation study. Primary data in monoculture farming systems.

include 1). Condition and acceptance of farmer One area located in West Sumatra potential to

community that is kateristik, perception, moti-

be Agrosilvopastoral region is Sumanik Village vation, and initial preference introduction of located in Tanah Datar Sumanik Village is a

program, and after program implementation. 2). Village is located in Salimpauang Subdistrict

Stakeholder support includes perception, moti- Tanah Datar Regency. This Village has the greatest

vation, and preference, stakeholder preparedness. potential for the development of Agrosilvopastoral

compared with other villages. This is seen from (1)

village climatic conditions that are included in the rain shadow area at an altitude of 550-650 masl, (2)

I NTERNATIONAL J OURNAL OF A GRICULTURAL S CIENCES V OL .2 N O .1 (2018) 10 –25

Data Analysis Method

community on the Agrosilvopastoral farming system after the pilot phase.

The data analysis used to look at people's

perceptions, motivations and preferences is One Phase III - Synthesis and Process of Score-One Criteria (Avenzora, 2008). Analysis of

Agrosilvopastoral Agricultural System Planning revenue and expenditure to see the feasibility of

Analysis is done by projection, either to the etawa goat breeding business as one component of acceptance or to the cost that will occur. Projected agrosivopastura.

costs are based on costs during maintenance

Research Procedures

including, fixed costs, variable costs, revenue projections derived from the sale of milk and male

This research is applied research with aim to goats. The cost of feed is converted to labor costs introduce Agrosilvopastoral agriculture system to

because forage is not purchased. In addition to the Sumanik Village. The research is phenomological

analysis of financial aspects of the program to and oriented to find the best planning option in

assess the success of the business through the implementing Agrosilvopastoral agriculture system

calculation of expected costs and benefits, which on agricultural area in Sumanik Village. In this

include: 1)Net Revenue, 2)R/C Ratio , 3)Net study there are 3 stages to be passed, as for the

Present Value , 3)Internal Rate of Return , stages are as follows;

3)Payback period

To look at the situation and make a strategy of Phase I - Assessment of Existing Conditions

development planning and development of Collecting data on the general condition of the

Agrosilvopastoral resources used SWOT analysis community to serve as justification for logic /

(Strenght / strength, Weakness / weakness, fairness in applying Agrosilvopastoral agriculture

Opportunity / Threat, Threat / threat). Planning system as an option to improve the welfare of

Agrosilvopastoral program in Sumanik Village Sumanik Village community. Analyzing the huge

begins with determining Vision, Mission and potential of agrarian resources of Sumanik Village,

Purpose. The purpose of the Vision and Mission is judging from the area of land suitable for

to know where the direction of Agrosilvopastoral agricultural activities (crops, forestry crops, and

agribusiness is developed. Therefore it is livestock) and off-farm real estate that has been

necessary to build a shared expectation of the utilized for such activities. Analyzing the welfare

desired expectations. Because without the condition of Sumanik Village community, seen

expectations to be achieved, nothing will be done. from the large of society's income, public

The techniques used in this activity are techniques consumption, people's livelihood, and the number

for creating scenarios in the future (future of productive age society and the status of their

Phase II - Trial of Agrosilvopastoral Agricultural

System

3.1. Assessment of Existing Conditions

At this stage the program is implemented for 1 Sumanik Village, is part of Tanah Datar

year, by giving capital rolling to 5 selected regency. This area is 650 -750 m above sea level,

respondents, directed to make the demonstration with an area of 2000 ha. The total population is plot as a trial, in the first 3 months of 5442 people, with details: 2647 people for men and accompaniment. Then do the monitoring 2 times a women 2795 people and population density 272 month to see the development of demonstration people per km. The main occupation of the plot agrosilvopastura. Then evaluated the program, population is farming and the farming is mostly and distributed the questionnaire again, to see the done by female laborers. The number of people perception, motivation, and preference of the who live Sumanik wander estimated 15000 people

I NTERNATIONAL J OURNAL OF A GRICULTURAL S CIENCES V OL .2 N O .1 (2018) 10 1 –25

(Profile Village, 2012). Located at hillside of profit-sharing system (even) Sumanik Village, and Merapi Mountain, the condition of the area is

outside Sumanik.

generally in the form of hills, the average The result of the study also shows that the temperature is 29˚C. Corrugated topography with

whole community of respondent farmers is in 10-30% land slope is a potential area for

productive working age according to the criteria of agricultural sector development.

BPS (2010), which is 15-64 years old. The Sumanik Village, is a rain shadow area with

percentage of older farmers is the highest (46.66%). rainfall ranging from min ≤ 100 mm / month and

Therefore, in forming farmer groups, in Sumanik max ≥ 200 mm / month, this makes Village

Village, need to be recruited young farmers because Sumaniak become dry area, because it is very rare

true young farmers are stronger and more eager to rain. The land located in Sumanik Village consists

know new things (Sukartawi, 2002). of rice field of600 ha, dry land (ladang) of 700 ha, and settlement area of 450 ha. The area of

Table 1: Livelihoods of Farmers Community agricultural land that has been utilized significantly

Respondents in Nagari Sumanik is about 500 ha (Profile Village and Village, 2012). Irrigation of rice fields found in Sumanik Village is

Number of very simple, which is limited to watering the

Livelihood

Percentage

Household village that only works in the rainy season. Rice

cultivation is usually done only 1-2 times in 1-1.5

- Farmers who own

their land

years, the average land owned by the farmers is

- farming

relatively narrow of 0.38 ha / KK.

Farming activities undertaken by the

- Farmers own land - Livestock

25 food crop agriculture, forest / tree crops, and raising

community in Sumanik Village are in the form of

livestock. Food crops contained in Sumanik are rice

paddy and various kinds of crops such as: corn,

- Livestock

4 cassava, long beans, taro aubs, ground kale, and

beans, chillies, peanuts, green beans, soybeans,

- Trade

spinach. Some of the forestry crops found in The total income received by the farmers of the Sumanik Village are avocado, durian, jackfruit,

respondents in Sumanik is obtained from farming jengkol, petai, gamal tree, banana, chocolate, surian

plus the income from the side business both in the wood, rain wood, and cinnamon. Currently, people

agricultural sector and outside the agricultural in Sumanik Village are very interested in planting

sector. There are still farmers who earn below the chocolate trees. Feed plants contained in Sumanik

minimum wage (6.70%), from field observations Village are elephant grass and mexican grass grown

the low income level of the farmers' community is on roadsides, rice terraces, in front of the houses,

not resolved from the problem of low control of and in vacant land that grows irregularly.

production assets, such as the relatively narrow In general, there are two characteristics of

farmland.

farmers' livelihood level in Sumanik Village,

namely: 1) the advanced category farmers who

3.2. Introduction of Agrosilvopastoral

control large land, either in the form of their own

Agricultural System

land and other land with the system of holding the pledge so that they have a good level of prosperity;

At this stage of the research, the And 2) low category farmers with relatively small

introduction of Agrosilvopastoral system in the land tenure and low welfare, so that in addition to

farming community in Sumanik Village. In farming on their own land they also use other

addition, interviews and questionnaires were people's land with a land contract system or a

distributed to farmers and stakeholders regarding Agrosilvopastoral farming system.

I NTERNATIONAL J OURNAL OF A GRICULTURAL S CIENCES V OL .2 N O .1 (2018) 10 –25

b. Perceptions of Respondents to the Benefits of community in Sumanik Village are monocultures

Most agricultural systems adopted by the

Agricultural Activities

and the average chemical fertilizer use is for urea

fertilizer of 175 kg/ha, for SP-36 100 kg / ha and Basically, all agricultural business is an KCL 50 kg/ha. Agrosivopastura has advantages

economic activity that requires the same basic that monoculture farms do not have in the form of

knowledge of business place management, seed higher diversity so it is expected to meet the basic

selection, cultivation method, yield collection, needs of the community and small farmers as well

product distribution, product processing and as release it from dependence on imported

packaging and marketing.

products, such as inorganic fertilizers and

pesticides that affect the independence of the

c. Perception of Respondents to the Benefits of Livestock Activities

nation. (Yuwariah, 2015).

The result of the interview shows that the The result of the study shows that most of the people in Sumanik Village are not familiar with

farmers in Sumanik Village responded positively to Agrosilvopastoral farming system. In addition, the

the benefits of farming activities. People really community has never received technical counseling

realize that breeding provides many benefits for from the local government on a regular basis on the

their survival.

management of agricultural land and plantations on

an ongoing basis without damaging the land for

d. Respondents' Perceptions of Forest Agriculture future generations.

Activities

Forests play an important role in supporting

Perception of Respondents

human life, because it produces a variety of products that can be classified into three groups:

One's perception is influenced by personal wood, non-timber forest products (NTFPs) and factors and situational factors and an innovation environmental services. Forests also produce three will be adopted by the farmer if the farmer has a groups of environmental, social, and economic good perception of the innovation.

benefits.

a. Perceptions of Respondents to Agricultural Skills Table 2: Perception of farmer community of

The results of the study showed that most of the respondents in Nagari Sumanik respondents perceived that farming skills that they

to his skills in agriculture control most are monoculture farming, followed by

farming and farming of forest crops. The high Percentage of Perceptual Value (%)

Component

positive perceptions of respondents on skills in

monoculture farming system, because the

Monoculture farming

community has not known and realized the benefits of Agrosilvopastoral farming system. The results of Polyculture

farming

the AIAT study of South Sulawesi (2002), indicate

13.33 23.33 26.67 36.67 that in the long term intensive and continuous rice - monoculture resulted in the degradation of soil

Forestry agriculture

Livestock

fertility, thus decreasing the productivity of paddy fields. Therefore, it is necessary to assist the experts

Description: 1 = very unskilled, 2 = unskilled, in the field of agriculture and the government to

3 = somewhat unskilled, 4 = ordinary, give new methods to the farmers and change the

5 = somewhat skilled, 6 = skilled, 7 = highly skilled way they think more complex so as to be able to

increase agricultural production in Sumanik

Village.

I NTERNATIONAL J OURNAL OF A GRICULTURAL S CIENCES V OL .2 N O .1 (2018) 10 1 –25

Table 3: Public Perceptions of Respondent Farmers

Stakeholder Readiness

Against the Benefits of Agriculture Seen as a whole Stakeholders in Sumanik

Benefit

Value of perception (%)

Village stated they are ready to implement

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Agrosilvopastoral system, because they want added

Employment provider

value from agriculture system which done through

Economic

agriculture system Agrosilvopastoral which will be

improvement

26.67 73.33 done.

Food supplier

Food supplier

Table 4: Preference of farmer community of

Industrial raw material

30.00 70.00 respondent to form of agrosilvopastura

supplier

application in Nagari Sumanik

Ecotourism industry and

Level of interest (%) spiritual health

6.67 23.33 70.00 App

implementation

Social politic

6 7 tools

3.33 6.67 90.00 option Agrosilvopastura

20.00 80.00 Description: 1 = Very unhelpful 2 = Not useful

is carried out

3 = Somewhat unhelpful 4 = Indifferent independently

with local

5 = Somewhat helpful 6 = Useful 7 = Very useful

farming community of

e . Perceptions of Respondents Against Land

Sumanik village

Condition in Sumanik Village

Agrosilvopastura is done semi-

The community of farmers of Sumanik Village

independently

respondents predominantly perceive that their land

assisted by

condition is very fertile and suitable both for crops,

relevant

forestry, and for raising livestock.

stakeholders Agrosilvopastura

f. Respondent's Perceptions of Land in Sumanik

is done as a pilot

Village

project

Almost a part of the community of farmers

Description:

respondents in Sumanik Village perceived that the

1 = very uninterested, 2 = not interested, availability of agricultural resources in Sumanik

3 = somewhat interested, 4 = normal, Village quite good.

5 = somewhat interested, 6 = interested,

7 = very interested

Motivation of Respondents

The results of the study show that the farmers

Agrosilvopastoral Agricultural System Testing

of respondents in Sumanik are highly motivated to The Agrosilvopastoral demonstration plot was perform Agrosilvopastoral farming system.

commenced on 20 June 2015, on the land belonging to the family of the head of Nanyo Saiyo

Preferences of respondents Farmer Group located in Jorong Guguak Manih, The community of respondents tends to

Sumanik Village with a land area of ± 1.5 ha. prefer the Agrosilvopastoral farming system to be

Integration between food crops, woody crops and implemented in Sumanik Village first as a pilot

Etawa goats in one farming unit leads to project / demonstration plot. This is because they

sustainability between production and land want to learn first before practicing

allocation and other resources. Sarjono et al (2003), Agrosilvopastoral farming system on their own

said that there is an interaction between the land.

cultivation of food crops, tree crops and livestock

I NTERNATIONAL J OURNAL OF A GRICULTURAL S CIENCES V OL .2 N O .1 (2018) 10 –25

because plants produce biomass that can be used as goats once a week, d) pay attention to the livestock animal feed. While cattle produce manure that can

goat for Lust is not overlooked, e) marries the

be restored to improve and maintain soil fertility. leprous goat, and f) helps the birth of a goat. The respondents selected in this research

implementation program were 5 respondents,

Evaluation of respondent’s orientation to Agrosilvopastoral

including the chairman of Nanyo Saiyo Farmer

Agricultural Trial

Group. Each selected respondent was trained to

System

take responsibility for maintaining two goats in the

Evaluation is a regular and systematic process Agrosilvopastoral farming system. After the

demonstration plot for

one year with

in comparing the results achieved with the demonstration plot program ends, the tillers

benchmarks or predefined criteria and then made a produced from each goats that are kept in the

conclusion and the formulation of suggestions at demonstration plot will belong to the farmers, then

each stage of the program (Azwar, 1996). Agrosilvopastoral farming system will be done on

The result of the study shows that gradually their respective land. Here are some of the

change of perception, motivation, and preference of responsibilities that must be undertaken by the

farmer toward farmers of respondents during the demonstration

system after plot program:

Agrosilvopastoral

farming

Agrosilvopastoral demonstration plot. These Against food crops (agro). Respondent farmers

changes are described in the following description. working together plant crops on the land that has

been provided, using manure produced by goat

a. Respondents' perceptions of their agricultural cattle. Food crops grown in demonstration plots are

skills

adjusted to market demand and respondents' Almost all respondent farmers (83.33%) wishes. Selected namely; Sweet potatoes,

perceived to have better skills in doing polyculture vegetables spinach, vegetables kale. Planting of

(agrosivopastura) after attending demonstration plot new food crops can be done in November (when it

program than before From this it can be concluded starts the rainy season) because in June when the

that the farmers have experienced the learning entry of goats is the dry season.

process; Called Van den Ban and Hawkins (2000) Against woody plants (silvo). Respondent

as acquiring and improving the ability to execute an farmers working together must maintain the

attitude pattern through experience and practice. existing woody plants, and fertilize with organic

fertilizer produced by goats that are kept.

b. Perceptions of respondents to the benefits of Against animal feed (pastura). Respondent

agricultural activities

farmers work together to grow elephant grass and The results showed that respondents' gamal (rain) trees in the fields around the

perceptions of the benefits of agriculture became demonstration plot as well as on their respective

relatively higher in all aspects after participating in homes for Etawa Peranakan feed which is

the Agrosilvopastoral agribusiness demonstration maintained in the demonstration plot. The

plot program. This is understandable because the cultivation of leguminosa used is Gamal pohom

farming community of respondents has benefited (Sumanik: rainwood) done on the edge of the land

directly from the existence of demonstration plots. around the demonstration plot, this plant is very

The increased knowledge of respondents reflects helpful in the dry season.

the awareness of respondents to seek and accept Goats on demonstration plot should be

ideas and practices that can be perceived as maintained intensively. Respondent farmers are

something new by individuals (Makruf, 2014). obliged to carry out activities in the form of: a)

mowing grass and feeding and drinking goats in the

morning and evening, b) cleaning the cage and

collecting goat droppings into sacks, c) bathing

I NTERNATIONAL J OURNAL OF A GRICULTURAL S CIENCES V OL .2 N O .1 (2018) 10 1 –25

c. Perception of respondents to the benefits of the fact that many Sumanik people are wandering, livestock activities.

so their land is used by the people who live in the village. It is necessary to establish a grand strategy

The result of the study shows that positive of agricultural development in Sumanik Village

perception of farmers of respondents to farming through the empowerment of small farmers, such as

activities in Sumanik Village increased after the developing commodities and agribusiness activities

demonstration demonstration plot This is in accordance with the potential of land and

supposedly derived from the influence of social residents in Nagarai Sumanik, so that the concept is

environment encouragement

obtained

by

expected to grow the agricultural sector so that in respondents due to incorporated in the group of

turn can be a source of new growth For the people's demonstration plot farmers or in line with Leavit

economy in Sumanik Village.

(1978) statement that the perspective of individuals

Comes from his group and his membership in the Synthesis and Process of Agrosilvopastoral

community.

Agricultural System Planning

d. Respondents’ perceptions of forest agriculture Agrosilvopastoral agriculture system has high activities.

economic value and is beneficial socially and The result of the study shows that the positive

Agrosilvopastoral perception of farmers of respondents to forest

environmentally.

Thus

agriculture has excellent prospects for development agriculture activities in Sumanik Village increased

as it is useful to increase the likelihood of remaining important forest and tree resources for

after the demonstration plot. This is a good sign future generations and to improve the welfare of

because perception will affect the formation of the rural communities whose livelihoods depend on the

mindset and attitude of the farmer. In line with

agricultural sector.

what Walgito (1981) said, perception is the first

impression to achieve success. Economic benefits of Agrosilvopastoral

e. Respondent's perception of land condition. Optimalization of economic benefits in

agricultural system

The result of the study shows that positive perception of farmers of respondents about the

Agrosilvopastoral system in principle is done condition of land in Sumanik Village increased

through production activities that utilize all the after participating in the demonstration plot

potential energy that can be harvested in a balanced program, partly because the community is

because it is in one area so that the utilization can increasingly

occur efficiently and effectively. The following agribusiness system is beneficial to increase the

describes the economic performance of some fertility of the land. This is in line with the study of

components of the Agrosilvopastoral system in Sumanik Village.

Bagella et al. (2014) in the Mediterranean region

that the maintenance of the land using the

Diversity of Food Crops

Agrosilvopastoral system can ensure the

conservation of biodiversity for vines and Food crops grown in demonstration plot as one underground microorganisms so as to affect the

component of Agrosilvopastoral tailored to the fertility of the land. wishes of respondent farmers community, which consists of sweet potato, vegetables kale, and spinach. Cultivation

of

food crops in

3.4. Respondents' perceptions of agricultural

Agrosilvopastoral demonstration plot done by

resources

working together by several families of farmers of respondents in turn. All family members are

Most of the farmers respondents positively involved. The activities of food crop farming in

respond to the four components of agricultural demonstration plot Agrosilvopastoral begins with

resources in Sumanik Village. This may be due to land preparation. The need for production inputs for

I NTERNATIONAL J OURNAL OF A GRICULTURAL S CIENCES V OL .2 N O .1 (2018) 10 –25

food crops planted in demonstration plot in Table 7: Revenue of tree plant component of Agrosilvopastoral activities include seeds, labor

agrosilvopastura demonstration plot in and fertilizer.

Nagari Sumanik

Table 5: Input and Production Cost Requirement on Annual revenue

Tree type

Number of

(Rp) Food Crop Activity in agrosilvopastura

Components The cost of any Food crop activity

Petai

1 200,000 Kangkung Spinach

(Rp)

Jengkol

Sweet potatoes

3 150,000 Wage of labor

Surian woods

The results of the analysis indicate that the The surian or suren tree (Toona sureni) is a crops business as a component of Agrosilvopastoral

fast-growing plant species and at 12-15 years old it is feasible (profitable) to be done in Sumanik

can produce wood (Jayusman, 2006). Village. The R / C ratio of 3.30 means that every Rp 1,000 the cost incurred will generate income of

Rp 3,300.

Etawa Goat(PE)

Livestock breeding of etawa, which Table 6 : Analysis of component food plant

produces meat, milk, and fertilizer is financially business in demplot agrosilvopastura

analyzed as one of the components in the in Nagari Sumani demonstration

Agrosilvopastoral agribusiness done in Sumanik. According to

plot

of

Livestock Training Center (2003), goat livestock Components

Value (Rp)

waste is potential as a source of organic fertilizer, this is because faeses and urine goats containing N

Total revenue

and K kites twice as big as cow dung. Analysis is Total cost

done by projection, either to the acceptance or to Net income

the cost that will happen. Goat mothers are estimated to give birth to children on average each

R/C ratio

3.30 time one child per period with a mortality of 10%. Projected costs are based on costs during maintenance that include fixed costs, variable costs,

Woody Plants projected revenue earned from the sale of milk,

Tree / woody plants contained in the

goat and organic fertilizer.

demonstration plot are durian, surian wood, petai,

a. Projection of population development of etawa interviews with respondent farmers for durian,

jengkol, jackfruit, and coconut. The results of

goat (PE).

petai, and jengkol crops can be harvested once a Projection of PE goat population development year, while coconut and jackfruit once 3 months.

is done to know the development of goat livestock The results of the study indicate that tree crops

PE in demonstration plot 5 years the female parent that provide the largest income per year are durian

will be replaced. Projection results made based on crops. The surian woods have never been sold

the development of PE goats in demonstration plot because they are not old enough. during the 1 year record shows that the population of goat cattle increasingly years. It is known that

I NTERNATIONAL J OURNAL OF A GRICULTURAL S CIENCES V OL .2 N O .1 (2018) 10 –25

the number of female mothers up to 10 years is Table 8 : Financial analysis of Etawa goat farming 409; 4-6-year-old goats aged 4-6 months while the

business in demplot agrosilvopastura age of 6-8 months amounted to 74 tails; Young

Nagari Sumanik

goats aged 4-6 months aged 4-6 months, while young males aged 6-8 months 74 tails, so the total

Value

Description

number of goats peranakan etawa until the end of (x Rp.1000)

the tenth year on the demonstration plot is 1,221 tails.

A Investment cost

Cage

Preparation of wells

44,500 component of agrosilvopastura

b. Etharian analysis of etawa cattle as one

Parent (male and female)

500 The instrument used to measure the efficiency

Equipment for cages and feed

1,000 of etawa goat breeds in Agrosilvopastoral

Electrical installation

66,000 demonstration plot is financial analysis which

Total Invests

37,098 includes Net Present Value analysis, Internal Rate

B Operating costs

103,098 of Return. The results obtained can illustrate the

C Total cost requirements

financial condition of the company, which can then

D Net profit per yea

92,193.13 in the future. Agrosilvopastoral farming system is

be used as a guide in the development of business

E NPV (i=20%/th), 10 year

1.82 very feasible to be applied in Sumanik Village and

F RC ratio

40.96% generate big profit for business actor. Thus, it is

G IRR

time for the Sumanik Village community to 39.94 integrate the activities of monoculture food crops,

H ROI (%)

2.14 tree / forest plantation, and animal husbandry which

I PBP (years)

56 they have done partially into one integrated

J BEP (amount of livestock)

K BEP (amount of livestock/ year) 9 Agrosilvopastoral system. Moreover, in the results

of other studies conducted by Bukhari and Indra

(2010) it is also proven that Agrosilvopastoral has the greatest / most favorable NPV, BCR and IRR

4. Conclusion

values among all forms of agroforestry /

agroforestry systems. The result of the study shows that the Sumanik Village community has a positive perception and

Thus, it is time for the Sumanik Nagari high motivation in applying Agrosilvopastoral

community to integrate the activities of farming system after the introduction process and

monoculture food crops, tree / forest plantation, and direct learning through the pilot project / animal husbandry which they have done partially demonstration plot agrosilvopastura. This step can into one integrated agrosilvopastura system.

be used as a reference for related parties in order to Moreover, in the results of other studies conducted enrich the knowledge and mastery of farming skills by Bukhari and Indra (2010) it is also proven that among the community, in order to improve their agrosilvopastura has the greatest / most favorable habits that tend to prefer to apply monoculture NPV, BCR and IRR values among all forms of farming system that is proven to have negative agroforestry. impact on the environment and less optimal

economic benefits for the welfare of farmers. Sumanik has great potential for the development and development of Agrosilvopastoral agriculture in the form of wide availability of land, adequate amount of productive labor, and positive

perception of various stakeholders (wali Village,

I NTERNATIONAL J OURNAL OF A GRICULTURAL S CIENCES V OL .2 N O .1 (2018) 10 –25

sub-district, college, related offices, regents) to Ekowisata Village di Ranah Minang, Agrosilvopastoral. Nevertheless, the application of

Sumatera Barat: Potensi Dan Dinamika Agrosilvopastoral agriculture in Sumanik Village

Kolaborasi. Di dalam: Teguh F, Avenzora R, is inseparable from several major obstacles,

dan Pembangunan among others: (1) limited land ownership and

editor.

Ekowisata

Pariwisata Berkelanjutan di Indonesia: venture capital among farmers; (2) limited

Potensi, Pembelajaran, dan Kesuksesan. technological mastery and Agrosilvopastoral

Jakarta (ID): Kementerian Pariwisata dan business management skills; And (3) lack of

Ekonomi Kreatif Republik Indonesia. Hlm. support for infrastructure and supporting facilities.

353-393.

Baba ASH, Castro FB, & Orskov ER. 2002. Agrosilvopastoral agriculture system integrated

The implementation

of

integrated

Partioning of energy and degradability of ecotourism in Sumanik Village will be able to

browse plantsin vitro ang the implicantios of improve the quality of management of various

blocking the effects of tannin by the potentials and resources in the region become more

additions of polyethylene glycol. Animal sustainable; Both economically, ecologically, and

Feed Science and Technology : 95 (1-2) 93- socio-culturally. This is possible because the

implementation of Agrosilvopastoral agriculture BPS Kab. Tanah Datar. 2010. Tanah Datar dalam system is at least able to provide three essential

Angka 2010. Tanah Datar: BPS Kabupaten needs for agricultural development in Sumanik

Tanah Datar.

Village namely: (1) the use of appropriate Bryant, Coralie, Louise G White. 1987. Manajemen

agricultural technology for natural conditions Pembangunan Untuk Negara Berkembang.

Sumanik Village which is a dry area; (2) the

LP3ES. Jakarta.

creation and development of markets for a range of goods and services produced; And (3) the

H. (1996) Tourism, application of communal patterned agricultural

Ceballos-Lascurain,

Ecotourism and Protected Areas : The State business mechanisms that can improve the welfare

Of Naturebased Tourism Around The World of farmers in general and realize social justice for

And Guidelines For Its Development. Gland farm households in Sumanik Village with limited

and Cambridge: IUCN. capital. CEU, 2007. Regulation (CE) No. 834/2007 of the

June 28, 2007. Council of the European Union, regarding

References

production and labeling of ecological products. Official Journal of the European

AAK. 1983. Hijauan Makanan Ternak Potong

Union

Kerja dan

Perah .Yayasan Kanisius.

Yogyakarta. Chambers, R. 1995. Pembangunan Desa Mulai dari Belakang. Lembaga Penelitian, Pendidikan,

Abdullah Shahab. 1998. Teori dan Problem Accounting Principles 1. SAS. Bandung.

dan Penerangan Ekonomi dan Sosial. Jakarta.

Adjid DA. 2001. Membangun Pertanian Modern. Jakarta: Yayasan Pengembangan Sinar Tani.

Conway, G.R. 1987. Agroecosystem Analysis: A comparative study of agroecosystems in Java

Agus, A. 2007. Membuat Pakan Ternak Secara

and NTT. KEPAS, Malang.

Mandiri. Citra Aji Pratama. Yogyakarta. Conyers, Diana, 1984, Perencanaan Sosial di Dunia Avenzora, Ricky. 2008. Penilaian Objek Wisata

Ketiga Suatu Pengantar, Cetakan ke-1 tahun Ekoturisme - Teori dan Praktek. Penerbit

1981, Gadjah Mada University Press, BRR NAD – Nias

Yogyakarta.

Avenzora R, Batubara RP, Fajrin RF, Sagita E, Cook, S.M., Khan, Z.R., Pickett, J.A., 2007. The Popi Riezka Armiliza,

use of push-pull strategies in integrated pest Romansyah B, dan Arifullah N. 2013.

Amelia M,

I NTERNATIONAL J OURNAL OF A GRICULTURAL S CIENCES V OL .2 N O .1 (2018) 10 2 –25

management. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 52, 375- Ginting, Meneth, 2006. Pembangunan Masyarakat 400.

Desa Sebuah Refleksi. USU Press. Medan. Correia dan Mascarenhas. 1999. Contribution to the

Hardjowigeno S, 2003. Ilmu Tanah. Jakarta: extensification/ intensification debate new

Akademika Pressindo.

trends in Portuguese montado. Journal, Hartadi, H., Soedomo, R., Allen, D. F. 1990. Landscape and Urban Planning Vol. 46pp;

Tabel Komposisi Pakan Untuk Indonesia. 125-131

UGM Press. Yogyakarta Haryanto. 2011. Dariah, A., A. Rachman, dan U. Kurnia. 2004.

Ar-Ruzz Media. Erosi dan Degradasi Lahan Kering di

Sosiologi Ekonomi.

Yokyakara. Hamzah, Z. 1980. Tipe-tipe Indonesia. Dalam Teknologi Konservasi

Hutan Indonesia. Majalah Kehutanan Tanah pada Lahan Kering. Pusat Penelitian

Indonesia No. 3 Tahun VII. Direktorat dan Pengembangan Tanah dan Agroklimat.

Jenderal Kehutanan, Jakarta.

Bogor: 11-34. Badan Penelitian dan Handoko, Tani, 2003 Manajemen, Edisi Keenam, pengembangan

Pertanian,

Departemen

Fakultas Ekonomi UGM

Pertanian. Hidayat, S, (1996), Perencanaan Pembangunan

Darusman D, Hardjanto. 2006. Tinjauan Ekonomi SDM Menuju Kualitas Global. Makalah Hutan Rakyat. Dalam Kontribusi Hutan

dalam Seminar Nasional Mempersiapkan Rakyat. Dalam Kesinambungan Industri

Mutu Pendidikan Tinggi Menuju Kualitas Kehutanan. Prosiding Seminar Hasil Litbang

Global di Universitas Merdeka Malang. Hasil

Malang 11-12 Nopember. H.A.R Tilaar. Lingkungan Hidup Dan Kehutanan. Halaman

Hohnwald, B. Rischkowsky, A.P. Camara˜o, R. : 4-13.

Schultze-Kraft, J.A. Rodrigues Filho, J.M. Darusman, D. 2002. Ekonomi agroforestry.

King. 2006. Integrating cattle into the slash- Makalah pada TOT Entrepreneurship in

and-burn cycle on smallholdings in the agroforestry education. Bogor 19 – 24

Eastern Amazon, using grass-capoeira or November 2002.

grass-legume pastures. Journal Agriculture, Darwanto, D.H. 2008. Pengembangan Pertanian

Ecosystem and Environment Vol.117, 266 – Menuju Sistem Pertanian Berkelanjutan

Yang Berorientasi Pasar dan Ramah Ife,J.,Tesoriero,F. 2008. Community Development. Lingkungan. Pidato Pengukuhan Jabatan

Alternatif Pengembangan Masyarakat di Era Guru Besar pada Fakultas Pertanian

Glaobalisasi. Pustaka Pelajar. Yokyakarta. Universitas Gadjah Mada. Yogyakarta.

IFOAM, 2005. Norms for Organic Production and Devendra C. 1990. Goat Ed. W.J.a. Payne in an

Processing, Version 2005. The International Introduction to Animal Husbandry in the

Organic Agriculture Tropics New York Fourth edition John

Federation

of

Movements, Germany.

Willeand Press. Indriyanto. 2006. Pengantar Budidaya Hutan, Bumi

Fandeli, C., Muchlison. 2000. Pengusahan

Aksara. Jakarta

Ekowisata. Fakultas Kehutanan. Gajah Iskandar, J. 2001. Manusia Budaya dan Mada. Yokjakarta Lingkungan. Kajian Ekologi Manusia.

FAO (2012). . FAO Statistical Yearbook 2012. Humanoria Utama Press. Bandung. Istigoni, World Food and agriculture.

2004. Simulasi Pengaruh Kemiringan Friedmann, John. 1992. Empowerment the

Lereng Terhadap Kecepatan Penjalaran Api Political of Alternative Development.

.Skripsi. Progam Studi

Cambridge, Massachusetts:

Budidaya Hutan Departemen Manejemen Hutan Publishers, Three Cambridge Center.

Blackwell

Fakultas Kehutanan IPB. Bogor. Gahey, Mc. S. 2000. The Basic of Ecotourism:

Januarti, 2009. Total Produksi Gas Dan Degradase Definition and Concept.

Berbagai Hijauan Tropis Pada Media Rumen

I NTERNATIONAL J OURNAL OF A GRICULTURAL S CIENCES V OL .2 N O .1 (2018) 10 –25

Domba Yang Diberi Pakan Dengan Ransum Mayrowati, H. & Ashari. (2011). Pengembangan Yang Diberi Saponin Dan Tannin. Sripsi.

agroforestry untuk mendukung ketahanan Fakultas Peternakan IPB. Bogor.

pangan dan pemberdayaan petani sekitar Jayadinata, J T. 1999. Tata Guna Tanah

hutan. Jurnal Forum Penelitian Agro DalamPerencanaan Pedesaan, Perkotaan dan

Ekonomi, 29(2), 83-98.

Wilayah. Bandung: Penerbit ITB. McDonald P, Edwards RA, Greenhalgh JFD, Jayadinata, Johara T. 1999. Tata Guna Tanah

Morgan CA. 2002. Animal Nutrition. Ed ke- Dalam Perencanaan Pedesaan, Perkotaan dan

6. Gosport: Ashford Colour Press Ltd. Wilayah. ITB Bandung.

McIlroy, R J. 1976. Pengantar Budidaya Padang Jhingan, M. L, 1992. Ekonomi Pembangunan dan

Rumput Tropika Pradnya Paramita. Jakarta

Menalled, F.D., Gross, K.L., Hamond, M., 2001. Rajawali, Jakarta.

Perencanaan, Terjemahan. D. Guritno.

and seedbank: Jumin, Hasan Basri. 2002. Agroekologi Suatu

Weed

aboveground

responses to agricultural Pendekatan Fisiologis. Raja Grafindo

community

management systems. Ecol. App 11;1586-01 Persada. Jakarta.

Mintzberg, H. 1997. Strategy Concept I: Five Ps for Kato, T. 2005. Adat Minang Kabau dan Merantau,

Strategy and Strategy Concept II: Another Dalam prespektif Sejarah. Balai Pustaka.

Look at Why Organizations Need Strategies. Adelaide University Union Bookshop.

Kartasasmita, Ginanjar. 1006. Pemberdayaan Masyarakat Konsep Pembelajaran yang

Müller-Lindenlauf, M., Deittert, C., Köpke, U., Berakar pada Masyarakat. BAPPENAS.

2010. Assessment of environmental effects, Jakarta.

animal welfare and milk quality among organic dairy farms. Livest. Prod.Sci.

Kartohardikusumo, 1965. Desa. Sumur. Bandung.

128,140e14.

Karyono. 1990. Homegardens in Java: Their Nahed, T.J., Ocampo, A., Jiménez, G., Salvatierra,

Structure and Function. In K. Launder and B., Grande, D., Gómez, A., 2011. Analysis

M. Brazil (eds). Tropical Homegardens. The of two peri-urban livestock production

United Nation University. Tokyo. systems in the valley of San Cristobal de Las Kont,H., Cyril O’Donnell dan Heinz Weihrich. Casas, Chiapas, Mexico. Res. J. Biol. Sci. 6 1996. Manajemen. Jakarta: Erlangga.

(4), 128-136.

Kovari, Istvan dan Zimanyi, Krisztina. 2011. Nair, P.K.R. 1993. An Introduction to Agroforestry. Safety and Securiy in the Age of Global

KluwerAcademic Publishers in Cooperation Toursm (The Caging role and conception of

with International Centre for Research in Safety in Toursm). Budapest: Agroinform

Agroforestry, I C R A F. Netherlands. Publishing Hous Nawawi, I. 2006. Pembangunan dan Problema Kusnadi. 2009. Keberdayaan Nelayan dan

Masyarakat. Kajian Konsep, Model, Teori Dinamika Ekonomi Pesisir. Pusat Penelitian

dari Aspek Ekonomi dan Sosiologi. CV Kuznets, Simon. 1971. Economics Growth of

Putra Media Nusantara. Surabaya. Nations. Cambridge: Harvard University

Nugroho, Iwan. Ekowisata DaPembangunan Press

Berkelanjutan. Pustaka Pelajar.Yokyakarta. Lipsey. R G. 1981. Pengantar Ilmu Ekonomi 1.

Niemeyer, K., Lombard, J., 2003. Identifying Rineka Utama. Jakarta.

problems and potential of the conversion to Mahmud, Syamsudin. 1986. Dasar-dasar Ilmu

organic farming in South Africa. In: Rkonomi dan Koperasi. PT. Intermasa.

Contributed PapePresented at the 41st Banda Aceh.

Annual Conference of the Agricultural Marpaung, H. 2002. Pengetahuan Tentang

Economic Association of South Africa Kepariwisataan. Penerbit Alfabet. Bandung.

(AEASA), October 2e3, 2003, Pretoria, South Africa.

I NTERNATIONAL J OURNAL OF A GRICULTURAL S CIENCES V OL .2 N O .1 (2018) 10 2 –25

Olea, A. San Miguel-Ayanz. 2006. The Spanish Puspitojati, M. Yamin Mile, Eva Fauziah, Dudung dehesa.

Darusman, 2015. Hutan Rakyat Sumbangsih silvopastoral system linking production and

A traditional

Mediterranean

Pedesaann Untuk Hutan nature conservation. Opening Paper. 21st

Masyarakat

Tanaman. Kanisius. Bogor.

General Meeting of the European Grassland Rahmat. 2015. Tingkat motivasi Petani Dalam Federation. Badajoz (Spain).

Penerapan Sistem Agroforestry (Farmer Pancapalaga W, 2011. Pengaruh Rasio Penggunaan

Motivation Level in Application of Limbah ternak dan Hijauan terhadap Kualitas

Agroforestry System)). Ciamis Jawa Barat. Pupuk Cair. Universitas Muhammadiyah

Jurnal Penelitian Sosial Ekonomi Kehutanan Malang, Jurnal Gamma 7 (1): 61-68.

12 (2), 1-11

Parakasi, A. 1999. Ilmu Makanan Ternak Reijntjes, C., Haverkort, B., Waters-Bayerr Bayrr- Ruminansia. Cetakan Pertama. Penerbit

NBayer, A. 1999. Pertanian Masa Depan. Universias Indonesia. Jakarta.

Pengantar untuk Pertanian Berkelankjutan Pardini, A, Michele Nori 2011. Agro-silvo-pastoral

dengan Input Luar Rendah (Terjemahan systems

Bahasa Indonesia oleh Y. Sukoco). Penerbit diversification.

mitra Tani, ILEIA dan Kanisius. Research, Policy and Practice. ISSN: 2041-

Journal

Pastoralism:

Reksohadiprodjo, S. 1985a. Produksi Tanaman 7136 No. 13570; 1-26

Hijauan Makanan Ternak Tropik. BPFE. Parikesit, Djuniwati, H.Y. Hadikusumah. 1997.

Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta. Spatial Structure and Floristi Diversityof

Reksohadiprodjo, S. 1985. Pakan Ternak Gembala, Man-made Ecosystems in Upper Citarum

UGM Press,Yokyakarta

River Basin, In: Dove, M.R., and P.E.Sajise Rozzi, P., Miglior, F., Hands, K.J., 2007. A total (eds) The Conditions of Biodiversity

merit selection index for Ontario organic Maintenance in Asia. East-West Center

dairy farmers. Journal Dairy Sci. 90; 1584- Program on Environment. Honolulu, Hawaii.

pp 17-43. Ruhimat. 2015. Tingkat motivasi Petani Dalam

Pimentel, D., Hepperli, P., Hanson, J., Douds, D., Penerapan Sistem Agroforestry (Farmer Seidel, R., 2005. Environmental, energetic,

Motivation Level in Application of and economic comparisons of organic and

Agroforestry System)). Ciamis Jawa Barat. conventional farming systems. BioScience

Jurnal Penelitian Sosial Ekonomi Kehutanan 55; 573-582

12 (2), 1-11

Plieninger, Tobias. 2007. Compaibility of livestock Rustiadi, Ernan; Saefulhakim, Sunsun dan Dyah R. grazing with stand regeneration in